Founded in 1861, the University of Washington is one of the oldest state-supported institutions of higher education on the West Coast and is one of the preeminent research universities in the world. Learn more
The UW is committed to improving the student experience. Plans currently are under way to remodel the Husky Union Building, expand the Ethnic Cultural Center and remodel the Hall Health Primary Care Center. Learn more about Student Life
Exceptional learning opportunities are around every corner. Our students have gone to the moon. Mapped the human genome. Broken the sound barrier. Created vaccines. Negotiated peace. What amazing things will UW grads do next? Read more
The University of Washington recruits the best, most diverse and innovative faculty and staff from around the world, encouraging a vibrant intellectual community for our students. We promote access to excellence and strive to inspire through education. Vision & Values
No matter where you are, Husky Happy Hours are a great way to plug into the University of Washington's strong network of alumni. Connect with UW grads in a casual setting and meet fellow alumni in your area. Details
Yesterday, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) published a report summarizing fall 2011 employment data and academic year 2010-11 student financial aid data submitted by all Title IV institutions to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
Here are some of the findings:
Public institutions offered more employment opportunities to graduate students than private ones: fully 17% of the public institutions’ labor force was composed of graduate students, while the figure stood at 7% for private non-profits and 0.3% for private for-profit institutions.
Private for-profit institutions relied heavily on part-time instructors: 86% of the staff engaged in instruction, research and/or public service at these institutions was reported as part-time, while 36% of public institution instructional staff and 30% of private nonprofit institution instructional staff fell in that category.
ON FINANCIAL AID:
For those attending public four-year institutions, average cost of attendance before aid was approximately $17,600 and net price was about $11,000; for those attending nonprofit institutions, average cost before aid was twice as high – approximately $34,000 – while net price was about $19,800; finally, for those attending for-profit institutions, average cost before aid was approximately $27,900 and net price was about $22,500. The average cost of attendance includes tuition and required fees, books and supplies, room and board, and other expenses.
An analysis of the average amount of total Title IV aid received by students per income category demonstrates public institutions’ focus on targeting those most in need: public institutions covered 53% of the total cost for students with family income below $30,000, and only 10% of the cost for students with family income above $110,000. The following table provides more detail on the comparable figures for private institutions.
Average Title IV aid
and average price before aid by type of institution, academic year
Family Income Level
Avg. Net Price
Avg. Net Price
Private For Profit
Avg. Net Price
The release of this information by the NCES coincides with an emerging effort aimed at “reimagining aid design and delivery” supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which was the subject of a recent article on Inside Higher Ed. We will keep abreast of developments related to this effort and provide updates as more information emerges in the next few months.
Today, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) published a report summarizing enrollment, price of attendance, and completions data submitted by all Title IV institutions to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) in fall 2011.
Here are some of the findings:
Between 2009-10 and 2011-12, the average undergraduate tuition and required fees at 4-year public institutions nationwide (after adjusting for inflation) increased more for in-state students (9 percent increase) than for out-of-state students (6 percent increase). This is consistent with the UW’s experience, where the tuition increase (after adjusting for inflation) was 31.1% ($2,509.05) for residents and 9.8% ($2,509.55) for non-residents over that period.
In 2010-11, of the 25,645,985 undergraduate students enrolled in Title IV institutions in the nation, 50.9% attended 4-year institutions – of these, 59.7% attended public institutions. The public share of the 3,876,611 graduate students enrolled in Title IV institutions was 47.6%.
Females constitute 57.0% of the undergraduate and 60.2% of the graduate students in the nation. They also account for 58% of the degrees granted by all 4-year institutions.
The controversial US News and World Report University Rankings have been released for 2012 and are freely available online for a limited period of time. The University of Washington slipped one spot to 42nd among National Universities in the US. The UW, however, comes in at the 10th best public institution in the nation.
Although the US News rankings have long been dominated by endowment-rich private institutions, it is notable that no public institution makes the top 20 anymore. A recent Washington Post article reported that, over the past 20 years, the five highest ranked public institutions have each dropped seven or more spots in the rankings.
In previous posts we have laid out the massive resource gap between public and private institutions that has widened over several decades and is reflected in these rankings:
Across the US, deep cuts in state funding for public higher education have accelerated this trend dramatically over the past three years. In response, the Seattle Times Company and several partners have formed to create the Greater Good Campaign to highlight the risks this trend poses to public higher education in Washington State and to the future of Washingtonians.
The Seattle PI drew attention to two major UW Initiatives that were recently highlighted in a message from Provost Mary Lidstrom. Be sure to check out the new websites detailing both of these new efforts:
The National Center For Education Statistics (NCES) is a part of the US Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. Every US University governed by Title IV of the Higher Education Act (federal student aid programs) is required to submit annual data to NCES via nine surveys that cover topics such as pricing, admissions, enrollment, employment, financial aid, graduation/completion, institutional finance and more.
Institutions reported employing (not including medical schools or hospitals) 3.8 million employees– 2.4 million full-time and 1.4 million part-time.
Of the 2.4 million full-time employees, 1.4 million were classified as professional (see report for definition), 46% of whom had faculty status: 21% with tenure, 9% on the tenure-track, and 17% not on the tenure-track or at an institution without tenure.
Of full-time faculty with tenure, 65% were men while 35% were women.
Of full-time faculty with tenure, 81% were White, 8% were Asian, 5% were African American, and 4% were Hispanic.
At this month’s meeting, the Board of Regents was given a presentation detailing student enrollment to provide a sense of the size and scope of the UW’s instructional enterprise. Highlights from this presentation are below.
In Fall 2010, 49,940 students were enrolled; this represents a 21 percent increase over the Fall 2000 enrollment of 41,200.
Of the 49,940 students, 42,935 (86%) are considered “state-reported students.”
Of the 7,005 non-state-reported enrollments, 1,020 represent students allowed to take up to six credits on a space available basis (senior citizens and state and university employees). Those remaining are students in fee-based programs.
State-reported undergraduate enrollments
In Fall 2010, 32,500 state-reported undergraduates are enrolled, up 16 percent from the Fall 2000 level of 28,000.
Of these 32,500 undergraduates, 16 percent are nonresidents.
Looking forward, a new report from the National Association for College Admission Counseling, 2010: State of College Admission, puts college enrollment figures in a national context by discussing trends in the college-age population and projections for post-secondary participation in the coming years. They find that while the number of high school graduates has peaked after a decade of growth (expected to rebound by 2018-19), college enrollment continues at an all-time high even though minorities and low-income students remain underrepresented.
The recently announced National Governor’s Association initiative ‘Complete to Compete’ outlines a promising plan to create a national set of performance metrics to enhance accountability and shape funding strategies. The NGA, under the leadership of incoming Chair West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin III, convened a Work Group on Common College Completion Metrics to make recommendations on the common higher education measures that states should collect and report publicly. The goal is to improve college completion rates and overall productivity in a new era of fiscal constraints coupled with unprecedented demand for higher education. Reliable, comparable data within the sector will be key to achieving these goals as NGA and others attempt to identify which policies and practices are tied to successful outcomes.
The initiative has gained supporters across the country, including among the Higher Education Funding Task Force created by Governor Gregoire in Washington this past summer. Below is a summary of the proposed Complete to Compete metrics.
They use the following definitions:
Completion rate: The percentage of individuals who complete a certificate or degree (e.g., associate and bachelor’s).
Attainment rate: The percentage of a population that has obtained a certificate or degree.
Productivity: Awarding more higher education certificates and degrees within the same resources, while maintaining quality.
They recommend the following metrics:
Degrees awarded: annual number and percentage of certificates, associate degrees, and bachelor’s degrees awarded;
Graduation rates: number and percentage of certificate- or degree-seeking students who graduate within normal program time (two years for associate’s degrees; four years for bachelor’s degrees) or extended time (three years for associate’s degrees; six years for bachelor’s degrees);
Transfer rates: annual number and percentage of students who transfer from a two-year to four-year institution; and
Time and credits to degree: average length of time in years and average number of credits that graduating students took to earn a certificate, an associate degree, or a bachelor’s degree.
Enrollment in remedial education: number and percentage of entering first-time undergraduate students who place into and enroll in remedial math, English, or both;
Success beyond remedial education: number and percentage of first-time undergraduate students who complete a remedial education course in math, English or both and complete a college-level course in the same subject;
Success in first-year college courses: annual number and percentage of entering first-time undergraduate students who complete entry college-level math and English courses within the first two consecutive academic years; and
Credit accumulation: number and percentage of first-time undergraduate students completing 24 credit hours (for full-time students) or 12 credit hours (for part-time students) within their first academic year;
Retention rates: number and percentage of entering undergraduate students who enroll consecutively from fall-to-spring and fall-to-fall at an institution of higher education;
Course completion: percentage of credit hours completed out of those attempted during an academic year.
In order to track whether access to higher education is sacrificed in the name of completion, NGA also recommends the following ‘context’ metrics:
Enrollment: total first-time undergraduate students enrolled in an institution of higher education;
Completion ratio: annual ratio of certificates and degrees awarded per 100 full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate students; and
Market penetration: annual ratio of certificates and degrees awarded relative to the state’s population with a high school diploma.
The UW has worked with the State for years in efforts to create a robust performance agreement. As those efforts continue, the influence of a national initiative such as Complete to Compete will be interesting to note.
After five years, $4 million and a lot of effort across many institutions, the National Research Council has released an update to their 1995 assessment of doctoral programs. A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Program in the United States analyzes 2005-06 academic year data collected from over 5,000 doctoral programs at over 200 universities. The NRC collected data directly from faculty, students, graduate programs, and institutions. The Graduate School coordinated UW participation in the assessment, which you can learn more about on their website.
Programs are ranked on the same 21 key variables by two different methodologies, the results of which are reported separately. These methodologies were very complex, but, essentially, the “S” (Survey-Based) rankings weight the relative value of the 21 key variables by program, based on faculty ratings of the relative value of each variables in a given discipline. For example, in the physical sciences, the number of external grants won is weighted more heavily than it would be for an English program. Alternatively, the “R” (Regression-Based) ratings are more similar to the traditional ‘reputation ranking’ where faculty were asked to rank a set of random programs, and then the key variables most associated with the highest ranked programs were assigned the most weight in the overall analysis of programs. Both sets of rankings are reported as ranges (e.g. a program might be ranked as somewhere between 3rd and 11th, at a 90% level of confidence).
While many UW programs do well in these rankings, criticisms of both the data and methodology are important to consider. Inside Higher Ed weighs in with an assessment of the ambivalence surrounding the veracity of the rankings, and the UW’s own Dean of Engineering, Matt O’Donnell, released a statement about possible shortcomings. UW Computer Science & Engineering also issued a strong critique, on which the Chronicle of Higher Education reported. The Chronicle also compiled these data in an easy to use format and offered its own analysis of the report’s delay and overall worth.
How meaningful these rankings are will be debated in the days ahead, but there is at least one important and indisputable conclusion included in the report, which is that public universities play an outsized role in educating our nation’s graduate students:
“Seventy-one percent of the programs ranked in the NRC study are in public universities. The proportion of programs in the universities with the largest programs is similar (70 percent). Among the 37 universities that produced 50 percent of Ph.D.’s from 2002 to 2006, 70 percent were public. Although public universities rely increasingly on nonpublic sources of funding, cutbacks in public funding for universities has a powerful effect on doctoral education simply because of how many large Ph.D. programs exist in public universities.”