The 2005 Carnegie Foundation Classifications and Their Implications for The University of Texas at El Paso

Transcription

1 The 2005 Carnegie Foundation Classifications and Their Implications for Texas at El Paso In 2005, the Carnegie Foundation restructured its Classification of Institutions of Higher Education and used new information to classify American universities and colleges. 1 This document provides information about the new classification scheme and analyzes the of El Paso s (UTEP s) new classifications in the context of those current and proposed peer institutions. Three peer groups have been selected for analysis: UT System institutions, excluding medical institutions, plus New Mexico State (see Table 1) Peer institutions listed in UTEP s state accountability report (see Table 2) Aspirational Peers listed in UTEP s state accountability report (see Table 3) Background of the 2005 Carnegie Classifications The Carnegie Foundation s website explains that the new classifications are meant to answer three central questions about colleges and universities in more detail than was possible under the previous classifications: What is taught, to whom, and in what setting? The six classifications now used to describe each institution are: 1. Instructional Program 2. Graduate Instructional Program 3. Enrollment Profile 4. profile 5. Size and Setting 6. Basic Classification The Carnegie Foundation limits its classifications to accredited degree-granting institutions that are separately identified in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the core data collection system of the National Center for Education Statistics. The data used to classify each institution were obtained from the IPEDS Completions survey, the National Science Foundation, and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Instructional Program According to the Carnegie Foundation classifications, UTEP is classified as with high graduate. UTEP shares this classification with 95 other institutions across the nation. The classification considers three factors: Degrees granted, in terms of whether an institution grants only associates degrees, mostly associates degrees, or mostly baccalaureate degrees. UTEP is considered baccalaureate dominant. 1 Information about the classifications is available on the Foundation s website at: Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 1 of 16

2 Institutions considered baccalaureate dominant are then grouped further according to the focus of their programs. UTEP is categorized as Balanced arts meaning that degrees to majors in the arts and sciences are balanced with those to professional majors (both constituting between 41% and 59% of total majors). The third factor considers the of graduate programs to complement learning. The three levels of are: no, some, and high. UTEP is classified as an institution with high graduate because more than half the majors offer corresponding graduate level degrees. UT System Comparisons (excluding medical institutions), plus NMSU Institutions in the UT System are all Baccalaureate dominant, and all maintain at least some level of Graduate. Of the peer cohort shown in Table 1, UTEP s Instructional Program classification is shared by: of Texas at Austin, of Texas at Dallas, and of Texas at San Antonio Accountability Report Peers Of the five schools selected as institutional peers, all maintained a high graduate with programs available. Two institutions were classified like UTEP as with high graduate : of Nevada-Reno of Wisconsin-Milwaukee The other three institutions were classified as Prof+A&S/HGC: Professions plus arts & sciences, high graduate : New Mexico State of Akron of Nevada-Las Vegas Accountability Report Aspirational Peers Like UTEP, the three institutions selected as aspirational peers maintain high graduate. Arizona State and Montana State -Bozeman were classified as with high graduate, while of Alabama-Birmingham was classified as Prof+A&S/HGC: Professions plus arts & sciences, high graduate. Graduate Instructional Program The Carnegie Foundation classifies UTEP, along with 44 other institutions across the nation, as Doc/STEM: Doctoral, STEM dominant. STEM refers to areas of study in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. UTEP is a doctoral institution with multiple programs of study but is not considered comprehensive by Carnegie s definitions, because the majority of doctoral degrees awarded are in STEM fields. The Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 2 of 16

3 Graduate Instructional Program classification is a bit more complex than the Instructional Program classification, and considers several more factors: Graduate institutions that grant only postbaccalaureate degrees are distinguished from those institutions that grant doctoral degrees. Nationally, there are: o 804 postbaccalaureate institutions, and o 409 doctoral institutions. Doctoral institutions are then classified in two groups those with one doctoral program and those with multiple programs. The third factor considers the disciplinary focus of doctoral degrees awarded. o Institutions with single programs are categorized according to those that awarded doctoral degrees in education or other single fields, which combined, constitute 96 institutions in the US. o Among institutions with doctoral degrees awarded in multiple fields of study, distinctions are made between comprehensive doctoral programs (further divided into those medical/veterinary programs, and those without) and programs dominant in particular areas either STEM, HSS (Humanities and Social Sciences), and all others. UT System Comparisons (excluding medical institutions), plus NMSU Among UT System institutions, only UT Dallas was classified as Doctoral, STEM dominant, like UTEP. UT Pan American and UT San Antonio were found to award doctorate degrees in mostly professional areas (e.g. education, health professions, social work, etc.). UT Arlington, UT Austin, and New Mexico State were all classified as Comprehensive Doctoral granting institutions, with degrees granted relatively equally across the STEM, Professional (non-engineering), and HSS fields. UT Brownsville, UT Tyler, and UT Permian Basin were not classified as doctoral institutions. Accountability Report Peers All institutions in this group were classified as Comprehensive Doctoral, which the Carnegie Foundation defines as awarding at least one doctoral degree in each of the following disciplinary domains: humanities, social sciences, and STEM fields, and one or more professional fields (such as business, education, engineering, health professions, public policy, or social work). These were divided further into two groups, those that offer medical/veterinary programs, and those that do not: Institutions with Med/Vet Programs: of Nevada-Las Vegas of Nevada-Reno Institutions without Med/Vet Programs: New Mexico State of Akron of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Accountability Report Aspirational Peers Among the institutions selected as aspirational peers, two have the same Graduate Instructional Program classification as UTEP, Doc/STEM: Doctoral, STEM dominant: Montana State -Bozeman Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 3 of 16

4 of Alabama-Birmingham Arizona State was classified CompDoc/NMedVet: Comprehensive Doctoral (no medical/veterinary). Enrollment Profile The enrollment profile for institutions considers the relative makeup of students in terms of degrees granted. UTEP is categorized as, meaning that of the total number of students enrolled, between 10% and 24% are enrolled in graduate programs. Nationally, there are 526 higher learning institutions that are considered to have a High enrollment. The Enrollment Profile is structured as follows: Institutions are categorized according to those that are exclusively, both and graduate, and exclusively graduate. Exclusively institutions are divided into two-year programs and four-year programs. Exclusively Graduate/Professional institutions categorized separately. Institutions that are considered both and Graduate are divided into: o VHU: Very High (less than 9% graduate enrollment) o (less then 24% graduate enrollment) o MU: Majority (less then 49% graduate enrollment), and o MGP: High Graduate/Professional (greater than 50% graduate enrollment) UT System Comparisons (excluding medical institutions), plus NMSU UT System institutions are all classified as both and graduate institutions. The following institutions share UTEP s classification of (between 75% to 90% enrollment): of Texas at Arlington of Texas of the Permian Basin, and of Texas at Tyler Only UT Austin and UT Dallas had Majority classifications (graduate enrollment between 25% and 49%) Accountability Report Peers All peers in this group were classified as. Like UTEP, each university enrolled between 10% and 24% graduate students as part of its total enrollment. Accountability Report Aspirational Peers The institutions indicated as aspirational peers for UTEP each represented a different classification. Montana State -Bozeman was classified as Majority, Arizona State was classified as High, and the of Alabama-Birmingham is classified as Very High. Profile Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 4 of 16

5 UTEP is classified as having an Profile of MFT4/I: Medium full-time four-year, inclusive, like 155 other institutions nationally. The Carnegie Foundation uses several factors to determine an institution s classification: Two-year institutions are distinguished from four-year institutions. Four-year institutions are then evaluated based on the percentage of student enrolled part-time, with UTEP considered Medium full-time. o PT4: Part-time four-year (part-time enrollment greater than 40% of total enrollment) o MTF4: Medium full-time four-year (part-time between 20% and 39%) o FT4: Full-time four-year (less than 20% of students are enrolled part time) The inclusive/selective measure is based on ACT scores and converted SAT scores at the 25 th percentile. Institutions with average composite scores below 18 were classified as inclusive, those between 18 and 21 were classified as selective, and those above 21 as more selective. The last factor evaluated only those schools considered selective or more selective. The measure of Transfer origin, which Carnegie used for selective and more selective institutions, considers the percentage of enrollees that transferred to a particular institution after the first year. UT System Comparisons (excluding medical institutions), plus NMSU Among UT System institutions, only UT Pan American shares the same classification of Medium full-time four-year, inclusive. Among other institutions, UT Austin and UT San Antonio were classified as Full-time four-year institutions, with either selective or more selective designations. Accountability Report Peers Only the of Akron shares the same Profile classification as UTEP, MFT4/I: Medium full-time four-year, inclusive. Nevada-Las Vegas is also classified as Medium Full-time, four-year, but is considered selective, with a higher rate of students transferring in. The other schools that were included in this group shared the ranking of Full-time, meaning that more than 40% of enrolled students attended full-time. UN-Reno and UW-Milwaukee had higher rates of transfer students while NMSU had lower transfer-in rates. Accountability Report Aspirational Peers The three schools in this group are all selective with higher-transfer in rates. Since there were very few doctoral-granting institutions that were also inclusive, we decided that Carnegie s designation of selective, would be the best proxy for UTEP s inclusive designation under this classification. Montana State is a Medium Full-time, four-year, while Arizona State and UA-Birmingham were classified as Full-time, four-year institutions. Size and Setting Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 5 of 16

6 According to its Carnegie s Size and Setting classification, UTEP is classified as a L4/NR: Large four-year, non-residential institution, and shares this classification with 125 others. UTEP is considered a large four-year institution because its enrollment exceeds 10,000. It is also because less than 25% of the student body lives on-campus (or in housing that is college-owned, affiliated, or operated). The Size and Setting categorization is based on the following factors: A distinction is made between four-year and two-year institutions, with two-year schools being classified anywhere from very small (less than 500 FTE students) to very large (greater than 10,000 FTE s). Four year institutions were classified as: o VS: Very Small (less than 1,000 FTE s) o S: Small (between 1,000 and 2,999 FTE s) o M: Medium (between 3,000 and 9,999 s) o L: Large (greater than 10,000 FTE s) The last factor classifies universities with less than 25% of its s living on-campus as Primarily Nonresidential, schools with at least 50% s living on-campus with more than 80% attending full-time as Highly Residential, and those in-between as Residential. UT System Comparisons (excluding medical institutions), plus NMSU All UT System institutions were categorized as four-year institutions that were. In addition, all but three were classified as large, like UTEP, except: Texas at Brownsville Texas of the Permian Basin Texas at Tyler Accountability Report Peers All of UTEP s institutional peers were classified as L4/NR: Large four-year, non-residential. Like UTEP, they all enrolled greater than 10,000 students and had less than 25% of its degree-seeking s living on campus. Accountability Report Aspirational Peers Among this group of peers, both Montana State-Bozeman and Arizona State were also classified as L4/NR: Large four-year, non-residential, while the of Alabama-Birmingham was classified as L4/R: Large four-year, residential. Basic Carnegie Classification The Basic Classification was added to the preliminary model after the initial release of the new classifications in November The basic classification resembles the previous structure used by the Carnegie Foundation. The foundation s website asserts that the new measures uses to classify Doctorategranting universities in the Basic Classification are more thorough than the previous classification structure. The Basic Classification now classifies institutions based on data gathered from one year (i.e., ), rather than over a span of several years. In Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 6 of 16

7 addition, under the previous classification, professional programs that awarded degrees other than the master s or doctorate were not taken into consideration, and there was no differentiation with respect to fields of study. The new classification looks more deeply into the nature of graduate education with a special focus on the program mix 2. The Basic Classification reflects the level of institutions degree conferrals and, for Special Focus Institutions, degree fields from The previous classification scheme pooled data across a span of three years. In addition, there are six designations in the Basic Classification: Associate s Colleges, Doctorate-granting Universities, Master s Colleges and Universities, Baccalaureate Colleges, Special Focus Institutions, and Tribal Colleges. Doctorate-granting universities are defined as institutions that award at least 20 doctoral degrees per year (excluding doctoral-level degrees that qualify recipients for entry into professional practice, such as the JD, MD, PharmD, DPT, etc.). This measure excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges. Doctorate-granting universities are further categorized in terms of research activity, which Carnegie explains is based on the level of research, not quality or importance: Research Universities (very high : RU/VH Research : RU/H Universities: DRU As with the previous Carnegie classification, Doctorate-rganting universities are differentiated according to research activity. Distinctions are based on the level of research, not quality or importance. The new Basic Carnegie Classification uses multiple measures on two indices to determine an institution s research activity, tahter than depending on the single factor of federal research funding. As a result, the three categories above do not correspond to previous classifications ( Extensive or Intensive, Research I or II, or Doctoral I or II). Carnegie measures research activity using two indices statistically constructed (using principle components analysis) from three factors: aggregate and per-capita research and development expenditures in science and engineering, aggregate and per-capita research and development expenditures in areas other than science and engineering, and aggregate and per-capita non-faculty postdoctoral research staff. Carnegie argues that institutions that were very high on either index were assigned to the very high group, while institutions that were high on one (but not very high on the other) were assigned to the high group. All other doctorate-granting institutions were classified simply as Universities (see Table 2). Of the nine UT system institutions listed in Table 1, five are classified as Master s Colleges and Universities and four as Doctorate-granting Universities. Doctorategranting universities like UTEP are further classified according to research activity. 2 A detailed explanation of the methodology used by the Carnegie Foundation for its Basic Classification may be found at: Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 7 of 16

8 UTEP s Basic classification is Universities (High Research Activity), along with 102 other universities. The following is a list of UTEP s peer institutions classifications from 2006 and from 2000: Research Universities-high research activity (classifies as -Intensive in 2000) o Texas at El Paso o Texas at Arlington, and o Texas at Dallas o New Mexico State Research Universities very high research activity (classified as Extensive in 2000) o Texas at Austin Master s Colleges and Universities large programs (classified as Masters College of I in 2000) o Texas at San Antonio o Texas at Tyler, and o Texas-Pan American Master s Colleges and Universities medium programs (also classified as Masters College of I in 2000) o Texas at Brownsville and o Texas of the Permian Basin Concluding Remarks The Carnegie Foundation emphasizes that their classifications are not intended to be used as rankings. For years, however, research institutions have used the inherent ordering of the measures intensive/extensive, Research I/II, and Tier I/II as benchmarks for improving their standing on the classification scheme. Growing public research institutions like UTEP must compete at a national level for critical research dollars, and classifications, for better or worse, may impact the competition for funding. So, while many argue that the classifications should not be used to gauge an institution s capabilities, the classifications represent a standard that research universities like UTEP aspire to work to improve upon. On the newest Carnegie classification, it is the Basic Classification that is receiving the most attention, based on our review of writings about new classifications. Attention to the Basic Classification is probably due to its close resemblance to the previous classification. The US News and World Report has used the Carnegie classifications as part of their ranking system for more than twenty years, and for the 2007 America s Best Colleges issue, it used the brand new Basic Classification. The intent of this study was to use the updated Carnegie classifications to compile a workable list of institutions that allow us to validate the accomplishments at The of Texas at El Paso in relation to other institutions who serve similar student populations. Unfortunately, due to the number of categories that are currently being used by the foundation, it is impractical to create a list using the data gathered for the Carnegie Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 8 of 16

9 Foundation. There are too many measures that differentiate between institutional characteristics, which isolate institutions from others. There are so few common sets of measures that finding peers would require that we overlook a specific measure for the sake of their inclusion. This study was also limited by the overemphasis of the basic classification, which again resembles Carnegie s old classification, and therefore overshadows the other measures. In order to create an adequate set of peers for UTEP, we will need to look more specifically at measures that indicate an institution s dedication to a mission of access, public research, and service to communities. We find that these elements will provide the basis for a peer analysis that is much more thorough than data that has been provided by the Carnegie Foundation. Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 9 of 16

10 Table 1: Carnegie Classifications for Selected of Texas System Institutions 3 Texas at El Paso Texas at Arlington Texas at Austin Texas at Brownsville Texas at Dallas Texas at San Antonio Texas at Tyler Texas of the Permian Basin Texas- Pan American Instruction high graduate Prof+A&S/HGC: Professions plus arts & sciences, high graduate high graduate Bal/SGC: Balanced arts some graduate high graduate high graduate Bal/SGC: Balanced arts some graduate A&S+Prof/SGC: Arts & sciences plus professions, some graduate Bal/SGC: Balanced arts some graduate Graduate Instruction Doc/STEM: Doctoral, STEM dominant CompDoc/NMedVet: Comprehensive doctoral (no medical/veterinary) CompDoc/NMedVet: Comprehensive doctoral (no medical/veterinary) Postbac-A&S/Ed: Postbaccalaureate with arts & sciences (education dominant) Doc/STEM: Doctoral, STEM dominant Doc/Prof: Doctoral, professions dominant Postbac-Comp: Postbaccalaureate comprehensive Postbac-Comp: Postbaccalaureate comprehensive Doc/Prof: Doctoral, professions dominant Enrollment Profile MU: Majority VHU: Very high MU: Majority VHU: Very high VHU: Very high Profile MFT4/I: Medium full-time four-year, inclusive MFT4/S/HTI: Medium full-time FT4/MS/HTI: Fulltime four-year, more selective, higher transfer-in PT4: Higher part-time four-year MFT4/S/HTI: Medium full-time FT4/S/HTI: Full-time MFT4/S/HTI: Medium full-time MFT4/S/LTI: Medium full-time lower transfer-in MFT4/I: Medium fulltime four-year, inclusive Size and Setting M4/NR: Medium four-year, M4/NR: Medium four-year, S4/NR: Small fouryear, Basic Classification RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity) Master's M: Master's Colleges and Universities (medium programs) Master's L: Master's Colleges and Universities (larger programs) Master's L: Master's Colleges and Universities (larger programs) Master's M: Master's Colleges and Universities (medium programs) Master's L: Master's Colleges and Universities (larger programs) 2000 Carnegie Classification 4 -Intensive -Extensive -Extensive Masters College or I -Intensive Masters College or I Masters College or I Masters College or I Masters College or I 3 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Carnegie Classifications Data File, August 4, 2006 edition. 4 The Chronicle of Higher Education website: Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 10 of 16 UTEP Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning, November, 2006

11 Table 2: Data from US News & World Report s 2007 America s Best Colleges for of Texas System Institutions 5 Texas at El Paso Texas at Arlington Texas at Austin Texas at Brownsville Texas at Dallas Texas at San Antonio Texas at Tyler Texas of the Permian Basin Texas-Pan American Total Enrollment 16,037 19,649 36,878 12,467 9,412 23,431 4,702 2,621 14,942 Graduation Rates Mean SAT/ACT Composite Setting Percent of Financial Need that was Met Average Financial Aid Package Selectivity Acceptance Rate Diversity 28% Urban 78% $9,294 Less selective 99% yes 40% Urban 74% $9,016 Selective 79% yes 75% Urban 90% $9,210 More selective 51% yes 35% N/A Urban 29% $3,269 Less selective 100% yes 56% Suburban 72% $9,016 More selective 51% yes 28% Suburban 52% $6,381 Less selective 99% yes 48% Urban 68% $7,270 Selective 75% yes 30% Urban 51% $3,302 Selective 86% yes 27% Urban 76% $7,488 Selective N/A yes 5 US News and World Report 2007 America s Best Colleges. Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 11 of 16 UTEP Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning, November, 2006

12 Table 3. Carnegie Classifications for Identified Peer Institutions 6 Texas at El Paso of Akron Main Campus of Nevada-Las Vegas of Nevada-Reno of Wisconsin- Milwaukee New Mexico State Instruction high graduate Prof+A&S/HGC: Professions plus arts & sciences, high graduate Prof+A&S/HGC: Professions plus arts & sciences, high graduate high graduate high graduate Prof+A&S/HGC: Professions plus arts & sciences, high graduate Graduate Instruction Doc/STEM: Doctoral, STEM dominant CompDoc/NMedVet: Comprehensive doctoral (no medical/veterinary) CompDoc/MedVet: Comprehensive doctoral with medical/veterinary CompDoc/MedVet: Comprehensive doctoral with medical/veterinary CompDoc/NMedVet: Comprehensive doctoral (no medical/veterinary) CompDoc/NMedVet: Comprehensive doctoral (no medical/veterinary) Enrollment Profile Profile MFT4/I: Medium full-time four-year, inclusive MFT4/I: Medium fulltime four-year, inclusive MFT4/I: Medium fulltime four-year, selective, higher transfer-in FT4/S/HTI: Full-time FT4/S/HTI: Full-time FT4/S/HTI: Full-time lower transfer-in Size and Setting Basic Classification 2000 Carnegie Classification 7 -Intensive -Intensive -Intensive Doctoral/research universities-extensive Doctoral/research universities-extensive Doctoral/research universities-extensive 6 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Carnegie Classifications Data File, August 4, 2006 edition. 7 The Chronicle of Higher Educations website: Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 12 of 16 UTEP Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning, November, 2006

13 Table US News and World Report Information for Identified Peer Institutions 8 The following institutions appear in Table 3. In Table 4 below, we provide information from US New and World Report s America s Best Colleges 2007 publication for comparison purposes. Total Enrollment Texas at El Paso 16,037 of Akron Main Campus 17,140 of Nevada- Las Vegas 22,077 of Nevada- Reno 12,937 of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 22,916 New Mexico State 12,656 Graduation Rates Mean SAT/ACT Composite Setting Percent of Financial Need that was Met Average Financial Aid Package 27% Urban 78% $9,294 35% Urban 49% $6,798 Selectivity less selective less selective Acceptance Rate Diversity 99% yes 82% yes 41% Urban 70% $6,416 selective 81% yes 52% Urban N/A N/A selective 86% yes 42% Urban 57% $5,966 selective 81% no 42% Urban 65% $8,728 selective 81% yes 8 US News and World Report 2007 America s Best Colleges. Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 13 of 16 UTEP Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning, November, 2006

14 Table 5. Carnegie Classifications for selected Aspirational Peer Institutions 9 We provide Carnegie Classification information below for comparison purposes. Texas at El Paso Montana State - Bozeman of Alabama- Birmingham Arizona State Instruction high graduate high graduate Prof+A&S/HGC: Professions plus arts & sciences, high graduate high graduate Graduate Instruction Doc/STEM: Doctoral, STEM dominant Doc/STEM: Doctoral, STEM dominant Doc/STEM: Doctoral, STEM dominant CompDoc/NMedVet: Comprehensive doctoral (no medical/veterinary) Enrollment Profile MU: Majority VHU: Very High Profile MFT4/I: Medium full-time four-year, inclusive MFT4/S/HTI: Medium full-time FT4/S/HTI: Full-time FT4/S/HTI: Full-time Size and Setting L4/R: Large fouryear, residential Basic Classification RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity) RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity) RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity) 2000 Carnegie Classification 10 -Intensive -Intensive -Extensive -Extensive 9 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Carnegie Classifications Data File, August 4, 2006 edition. 10 The Chronicle of Higher Education website: Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 14 of 16 UTEP Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning, November, 2006

15 Table US News Data for selected Aspirational Peer Institutions 11 In Table 6, we provide information from US New and World Report s America s Best Colleges 2007 publication for comparison purposes. Total Enrollment Texas at El Paso 16,037 Montana State -Bozeman 10,842 of Alabama- Birmingham 11,470 Arizona State 41,256 Graduation Rates Mean SAT/ACT Composite Setting Percent of Financial Need that was Met Average Financial Aid Package 27% Urban 78% $9,294 Selectivity less selective Acceptance Rate Diversity 99% yes 46% Urban N/A N/A selective 74% no 36% Urban 40% $14,304 selective 88% yes 55% Suburban N/A N/A selective 91% yes 11 US News and World Report 2007 America s Best Colleges. Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 15 of 16 UTEP Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning, November, 2006

16 Figure 1: Carnegie Foundation Scatter Plot Used to Determine Level of Research Activity Analysis of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Page 16 of 16 UTEP Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning, November, 2006