The Times Higher Education/Thomson Reuters World University Rankings for 2011-12 were released today and the University of Washington ranked 25th, one of only five public US institutions to make the top 25 (UC Berkeley was the highest ranking US public at 10).
US News and World Report recently ranked the UW 42nd among all national universities in the US, while the Academic Ranking of World Universities ranked the UW at 16.
These rankings help to validate the world class teaching, research and service that take place here at the UW every day. However, it is good to cast a critical eye on the business of ranking universities in general, and this column published by Inside Higher Education does a great job of summarizing some of the questions we should always ask of such ranking endeavors.
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.
Inside Higher Ed published a feature today detailing an ongoing process that has 27 universities, US and abroad, competing for a gift of land in New York City plus $100 million in exchange for the creation of a new tech-centered campus. Several New York based universities are submitting proposals, due in October, but notable universities from elsewhere such as Stanford and Chicago are also competing for the opportunity, as well as universities based in other countries.
As pointed out in the article, New York already has 110 institutions serving over 600,000 students. However, engineering and tech programs in the region have lacked the success and reputation that the city would like. While institutions with an existing presence in NYC or in the region may make more sense as a partner in this project, Stanford appears to be aggressively pursuing the opportunity, touting its role in the creation of Silicon Valley in California. If successful, this would be Stanford’s first campus outside of Palo Alto.
The absence of public universities on the applicant list is stark. Purdue is the only one. However, this is perhaps unsurprising given the billions of dollars likely required to build a fully operational campus from scratch in a short period of time, and the state-centered history of public institutions in the US.
For the lucky institution with the right amount of resources, this will hopefully be a great opportunity with long lasting effects for the institution and the city of New York. For all of higher education, it will be fascinating to see if this kind of partnership between government and institutions can work to create a new, physical campus that can quickly produce innovation and education while building and maintaining a reputation for excellence.
We’ve blogged previously about the controversial reforms being aggressively pursued by Governor Perry and various of the appointees he has placed on Texas higher education governing boards and in university administrations. The reforms were initially developed by the conservative think tank the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), and are centered around placing the student in a stronger consumer role, basing professor pay and tenure more directly on student evaluations, creating a bright line between teaching and research funding, and changing the state funding model from one that subsidizes institutions to one that provides grants directly to students. Many may recognize these as reforms long advocated for in the K-12 sector for some time.
After a protracted battle between a variety of interested parties (academics, administrators, legislators, state leaders, alumni, lobbyists and more), the University of Texas System Board of Regents unanimously approved what they called ‘A Framework for Advancing Excellence Throughout the University of Texas System‘ at their May meeting. An action plan released last week provided a glimpse at the compromises made to quell strong opposition.
More flexible than initially feared, the action plan allows institutions to tailor the reforms to their institutions. Major system-wide goals include:
- Increased degree production
- Increased use of online and blended instruction
- Development of performance incentives for professors
- Strengthening of post-tenure review for professors
- Creation of external review for schools and colleges within the institution
- Critical review of PhD programs and decreased time to PhD
- Increased research collaboration, especially with non-academic partners
- Increased research and philanthropic funding
- Increased administrative efficiency through standardized systems, sharing of services, and better space utilization
Although much less divisive than the specific reforms championed by TPPF, these goals are ambitious enough to put Texas in a category of its own nationwide. How individual institutions endeavor to implement the action plan in the near future, and the extent to which they engage faculty in the process, will likely determine the mood and direction in Texas public higher education for some time.
In the meantime, Florida Governor Rick Scott is indicating a desire to follow Rick Perry’s lead on this issue.
- UW Ranked 16 in the world: The annual Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), compiled by Chinese university Shanghai Jiao Tong, places the University of Washington at number 16 in the world. The rankings are heavily based on institutional and faculty achievements in STEM fields, including number of Nobel prizes and Fields medals won, and various citation measures. The US dominates this list, with 17 of the top 20 slots and 151 of the top 500.
- Ohio latest state to consider greater autonomy for public institutions: In a reversal of previous reforms that attempted to consolidate the university system in Ohio, Governor Strickland endorsed the idea of ‘enterprise universities’ in his state budget, released March 2011. Chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents Jim Petro was tasked with creating a detailed plan for legislative consideration. He unveiled The Enterprise University Plan last week. The plan provides three levels of increasing autonomy from various state government requirements in exchange for a reduction in per student funding of 10-20 percent. The state would continue to cap tuition increases at 3.5 percent per year. While the support of Ohio State President Gordon Gee looks likely, it is not yet clear how other universities or faculty members and legislators will react to this plan as many large questions about both intended and unintended consequences have already surfaced. For related information see our previous post, Quest for Greater Autonomy for Public Higher Ed Continues, and our OPB brief on institutional autonomy.
- Federal government joins lawsuits against for-profits: After implementing significant higher education regulation reform through the Department of Education, the Obama Administration shows a commitment to act by joining existing and new lawsuits against several for-profit higher education institutions accused of violating federal law. For related posts, see Federal Scrutiny of For-Profits Spurs State Action.
Kiplinger has released a map showing average student debt versus average income across all fifty states, as well as categorizing institutions they have identified as the most expensive and the ‘best values’. The UW comes in as the 10th best value public institution in the nation for 2010-11.
The map illustrates that Washington state students have a relatively low debt to income ratio: Average student debt is between $15,000 and $20,000, while average income is around $40,000 to $50,000, with about 61 percent of all students in the state taking out loans. Utah boasts the smallest amount of debt per student (under $15,000), while New Hampshire has the highest average debt load (over $25,000 per student).
These state level data are consistent with our most recent UW data. In 2009-10, 50 percent of all UW undergraduates borrowed and their average cumulative debt was $19,500. Although these figures are lower than the national average, they have increased over the last several years, especially as state funding cuts have necessitated tuition increases. This is why the UW Board of Regents voted to substantially increase the UW’s commitment to financial aid for resident undergraduate students starting this fall.
Note that Kiplinger also shows that students appear to be increasing their use of credit cards while in college, with 84 percent of students holding at least one credit card and half of all students holding four or more. The mean credit card balance was a record $3,173.
The Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy at California State University, Sacramento recently released a report titled “Consequences of Neglect: Performance Trends in California Higher Education.” The report claims that, although California is considered the world’s leader in public higher education, the state’s college and university system is closer to average—and may be declining.
The report uses six measures of higher education quality and access—preparation, affordability, participation, completion, benefits, and finance—to measure California’s performance in relation to other states. Their findings, if correct, are troubling:
- Preparation: The report uses graduation rates, standardized test scores, and the percentage of students taking college preparatory classes to measure preparation for college. According to the report, college preparation in California is worse than most states, particularly in rural and inland areas and for black and Latino students. However, these measures have been steadily improving over the past seven years.
- Affordability: Without taking into account room and board, the California system ranks high in affordability (largely due to the very low tuition at California community colleges), however, because of the high cost of living in California, affordability is significantly compromised. Furthermore, tuition and fees have been increasing dramatically at UC, CSU, and CCC, which will negatively impact affordability.
- Participation: One of the highlights for California is that participation in public higher education remains high (California ranks 6th in the percentage of 18-24 year old enrolled in college), though the trend is declining as tuition and fees increase.
- Completion: Although California ranks 12th in the nation in the number of associate degrees awarded per 100 high school graduates, it ranks only 41st in the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded per 100 high school grads. The report suggests focusing efforts on improving the transfer process from California’s two-to four-year institutions.
- Benefits: The report lists benefits from education in California as average, with high personal income tempered by low proportions of citizens with bachelor’s degrees and very low voter turnout.
- Finance: State appropriations per student FTE in California are slightly lower than the national average, and local and state funding has been steadily decreasing during and after the Great Recession.
The report urges California’s government to protect their investment in colleges and universities, long considered the best public higher education system in the world. Furthermore, it cautions policymakers not to be blinded by the stand-out performances of a select few California universities, while ignoring the vast majority of California’s higher education institutions that may be struggling.
As of July 15, all UW Global Challenge State Peers had approved resident undergraduate tuition increases for the upcoming 2011‐12 academic year. See the latest OPB brief for details.
Despite implementing a 20 percent tuition increase for resident undergraduates, the University of Washington, which has consistently ranked as the least expensive among the GCS peers, will continue to rank in the bottom third of the peer group in 2011‐12.
Having already increased tuition by 8 percent for the upcoming academic year, UC Regents are expected to consider an additional 10 percent increase due to the Governor’s failure to win extension of various temporary tax measures in California. As a result, the overall cut to the University of California has been increased from $500 million to $650 million (equaling a 21 percent cut in state funding for UC), which is expected to increase further if an agreement on revenue measures is not reached.
The latest talk of another tuition increase for resident students comes as the UC system has been increasing nonresident enrollment to help make up for state funding cuts.
On July 2nd, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the state affirmative action ban, which was passed as ‘Proposal 2′ by Michigan voters in 2006, is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.
While Washington State is not under the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit, the decision may have future bearing as Washington is one of seven states where voters have passed similar affirmative action bans in government hiring and university admissions, including:
- California in 1996
- Texas in 1996
- Washington in 1998
- Florida in 1999
- Michigan in 2006
- Nebraska in 2008
- Arizona in 2010
The legal challenge in Michigan focused on the ban of the use of race or ethnicity in college admissions. The three person panel ruled 2 to 1 that banning the use of race/ethnicity in college admissions qualifies as an unconstitutional alteration of the political structure because it places a larger burden on minorities, who would have to rely on Michigan voters to reinstate race as an admissions criterion, compared to other groups who would only have to lobby the University Regents and administration to enact or maintain preferential admissions treatment based on non-academic factors (e.g. geography, a specific talent, legacy status, etc.)
Michigan’s Attorney General will request a rehearing by the full panel of Sixth Circuit judges, and, if they hold up the decision, he will appeal to the US Supreme Court, which has changed substantially in composition since the 1982 case involving mandatory school busing in Seattle on which this opinion was heavily based.
← Previous Page — Next Page →