Table 1 USNWR TOP 25 IN 2018

Transcription

1 Table 1 USNWR TOP 25 IN University Princeton Harvard Yale Chicago Columbia Stanford MIT Pennsylvania Duke Cal. Tech Johns Hopkins Dartmouth Northwestern Brown Cornell Vanderbilt Rice Notre Dame Wash U (St. Louis) Georgetown UC Berkeley Emory USC N N 21 UCLA Carnegie Mellon Virginia 24 N N = not in top 25 that year Source: USNWR, Fall

2 Table 2 CORNELL USNWR RANKING Year Ranking Year Ranking (tie) 1984 No ranking (tie) 1985 Not in top (tie) 1986 No ranking (tie) (tie) (tie) (tie) (tie) (tie) (tie) 2 way (tie) 2 way (tie) 2 way (tie) 2 way (tie) 4 way (tie) 4 way

3 Table 3 Criteria and Weights Used in USNWR 2003, 2004 and 2015* Ranking of National Universities as Undergraduate Institutions Ranking Category Category Weight Subfactor Subfactor Weight Academic Reputation 25% ((22.5%)) Univ. Leaders ((15%)) HS Counselor ((7.5%)) Academic reputation survey 100% Student Selectivity 15% ((12.5%)) Acceptance Rate 15% (10%) Yield 10% (0%) High school class 35% (40%) ((25%)) standing-top 10% SAT/ACT scores 40% (50%) ((65%)) Faculty resources 20% Faculty compensation 35% Percent faculty with top 15% terminal degree Percent full-time faculty 5% Student/faculty ratio 5% Class size, 1-19 students 30% Class size, 50+ students 10% Graduation and retention rate 20% ((22.5%)) Average 6 Year Graduation rate Average freshman retention rate Financial resources 10% Average educational expenditures per student Alumni giving 5% Average alumni giving rate Graduation rate 5% ((7.5%)) Graduation rate performance performance 80% 20% 100% 100% 100% Source: America's Best Colleges, 2003 Edition, 2004 Edition and 2015 Edition (Washington, DC: U.S. News & World Report) * Numbers in parentheses indicate 2004 weights that are different than the 2003 weights. Numbers in double parentheses indicate weights in 2015 that were different than 2004 weights

4 Table 4 Let APP = number of applications ACC = number of admitted students ENR = number of admitted students who enroll Then (ENR/APP) = (ACC/APP) (ENR/ACC) Enrollment/Applicant Ratio = Acceptance Rate times Yield

5 USE OF EARLY ADMISSIONS TO IMPROVE SELECTIVITY: AN EXAMPLE WITHOUT EARLY ADMISSIONS 10, 000 APPLICANTS 4,000 ADMITS 2,000 ENROLL ACCEPTANCE RATE 40% YIELD RATE 50% WITH EARLY ADMISSIONS 2,000 EARLY ADMIT APPLICANTS 1,000 ADMITS 1,000 ENROLL 8,000 REGULAR APPLICANTS 2,000 ADMITS 1,000 ENROLL (THIS ASSUMES YIELD STAYS AT 50% ON REGULAR ADMITS) ACCEPTANCE RATE 30% YIELD RATE 67% SO USE OF EARLY ADMISSIONS DECREASES ACCEPTANCE RATE AND INCREASES YIELD- BOTH MAKE THE INSTITUTION LOOK MORE SELECTIVE

6 Table 5 Comparison of Penn and Cornell in 2011 USNWR Rankings Factor Penn Cornell Rank 5 15(tie) Overall Score Peer Assessment (22.5%) Grad. and Retention Rank (20%) 5 15 Ave. Freshman Retention 98% 96% Predicted Graduation Rate 94% 91% Actual Graduation Rate 95% 92% Over(+) or Under (-) Perf. (5%) Faculty Resource Rank (20%) 3 16 % of Classes Under 20 72% 56% % of Classes Over 50 12% 18% Student/Faculty Ratio 6/1 11/1 % Faculty Full-time 100% 98% Selectivity Rank (15%) 9 20 SAT 25 th - 75 th Percentile % Freshman Top 10% 91% 86% Acceptance Rate 8% 19% Financial Resource Rank (10%) Alumni Giving Rank (5%) Alumni Giving Rate 34% 31% Average Faculty Salaries Pennsylvania $140,711 Cornell Endowed 130,166 Cornell Statutory 115,899 Cornell Average 124, Full-Time Faculty Numbers Business Law Pennsylvania Cornell 75 43

7 Other College Rankings Example Forbes (America s Top Colleges) all colleges and universities together, output based not input, 1. Post-Graduate Success (32.5%) a. Payscale.com and College Scorecard earnings b. College Leaders List (Forbes lists such as CEOs, Nobel, Pulitzer and other major prize winners 2. Student Debt (25%) a. Average student debt load b. Student default rates c. Predicted vs Actual students taking federal loans 3. Student Satisfaction (25%) a. Actual and predicted retention rates b. RateMyProfessor Ratings 4. Graduation Rates (7.5%) a. 4-year graduation rate (actual and actual- predicted) 5. Academic Success a. Prestigious National Awards- scholarships and fellowships b. Percentage that Go on for PhDs. Others Washington Monthly (focus on contributions to the social good) Wall Street Journal (focus on grad rates, salaries and student engagement) Times Higher Education (research prowess) Money Magazine (also includes salary of graduates Take the average of all 6 including USNWR including only national universities 2016 Cornell was 16 th (Washington Post, October 20, 2016)

8 Table National Research Council Faculty Quality Ratings for Cornell University Doctorate Programs (Numbers to the right of / are number of rated programs) Program National Rank Program National Rank Arts and Humanities Physical Sciences & Mathematics Art History 23/38 Astrophysics/Astronomy 9/33 Classics 12/29 Chemistry 6/168 Comparative Literature 6/44 Computer Science 5/107 English 7/127 Geosciences 9 (tie)/95 French 8/45 Mathematics 15/135 German 3/32 Physics 6/146 Linguistics 9/41 Statistics/Biostatistics 4/58 Music 11 (tie)/65 Philosophy 9/71 Spanish 8/54 Biological Sciences Social and Behavioral Sciences Biochem. & Molecular 22/187 Anthropology 31/69 Biol. Cell & Developmental 35 (tie)/165 Economics 18/106 Biology Ecology, Evolution & 4/127 History 13/111 Behavior Molecular & General 23/102 Political Science 15/97 Genetics Neurosciences 24/98 Psychology 14/185 Pharmacology 65/121 Sociology 35/95 Physiology 31/135 Engineering Aerospace Engineering 6/33 Chemical Engineering 13/93 Civil Engineering 6/86 Electrical Engineering 7/126 Material Sciences 3/62 Mechanical Engineering 7/110 Source: Marvin Goldberger, Brendan A. Maher and Pamela Ebert Flattau, eds., Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995).

9 Table USNWR Rankings of Graduate Programs in Economics Economics Overall (2017) Labor Economics (2009) Labor Economics (2017) 1. MIT 1. Chicago 1. Harvard 1. Harvard 2. Harvard 2. MIT 1. Princeton 3. Princeton 3. Princeton 1. Stanford 4. MIT 3. Chicago 1. Berkeley 5. Berkeley 5. Berkeley 1. Yale 6. Michigan 6. Michigan 7. Chicago 7. Stanford 7. Stanford 7. Northwestern 8. Pennsylvania 8. Yale 9. Columbia 9. Yale 9. Winsconsin 10. Pennsylvania 10. Northwestern 11. NYU 11. Yale 12. Michigan 12. Cornell 12. Wisconsin 13. Columbia 12. UCLA 14. UCLA 12. UC San Diego 15. Duke 16. Minnesota 16. Cornell 16. Duke 19. Brown 20. Carnegie Mellon

10 EHRENBERG/HURST PAPER A HEDONIC MODEL OF GRADUATE PROGRAM RANKINGS DEPENDENT VARIABLE- SUBJECTIVE RANKING OF RATERS EXPLANATORY VARIABLES (ACT AS IF RATERS KNEW THEM) 1. NUMBER OF FACULTY 2. NUMBER OF FACULTY SQUARED 3. PUBLICATIONS PER FACULTY MEMBER 4. CITATIONS PER PUBLICATION 5. GINI COEFFICIENT OF PUB./FAC. MEM. 6. PERCENTAGE OF FACULTY WITH FUNDING 7. PHDS PRODUCED PER FACULTY MEMBER 8. AVERAGE TIME TO DEGREE FOR PHDS THIS EQUATION WAS ESTIMATED SEPARATELY BY FIELD IF A DEPARTMENT IS NOT HIGHLY RANKED ADMINISTRATORS CAN USE THE ESTIMATES TO ANSWER THE QUESTION HOW MUCH OF A DEPARTMENT S LOW RANKING IS DUE TO EACH OF THE VARIABLES/ CONTRAST HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS USED FOR 1. SOCIOLOGY 2. BIOLOGY