office of institutional research song yan, kristy maxwell, mark a. byrd associate director senior...

U.S. News & World Report’s American’s Best

Colleges Ranking Methodology

Office of Institutional ResearchSong Yan, Kristy Maxwell, Mark A. ByrdAssociate Director Senior Research Analyst AVP

Wayne State University

U.S. News Best Colleges ranking background

Methodology: ◦ Details on how the Best Colleges rankings are

calculated◦ How each ranking variable is computed and how

each estimate is calculated New changes to the rankings Criticism of the rankings

Agenda

First ranking published in 1983 It’s purpose was to be a starting point for families

searching for a college Allows for comparison of relative cost, “quality,”

retention and graduation rates In September 2011, U.S. News Education section

had 4.5 million unique visitors (announced by U.S. News)

Rankings published by U.S News in 2012: ◦ Best Colleges, September 2012◦ Best Grad Schools, March, 2012◦ Best High Schools, May 2012◦ Top online Programs, January, 2012 (first time)◦ World’s Best Universities, October 2012

Background

Ranking categories:Based on Carnegie Basic Classification◦ National Universities: (Offer a full range of

undergraduate majors, plus master’s and Ph.D. programs, and faculty emphases on research)

◦ National Liberal Arts Colleges (focus almost exclusively on undergraduate education)

◦ Regional Universities (offer a broad scope of undergraduate degrees and some master’s degree programs, but a few, if any, doctoral programs)

◦ Regional Colleges (focus on undergraduate but grant fewer than 50% of their degrees in liberal arts disciplines)

Best Colleges Ranking Categories

Quantitative measures that education experts have proposed as reliable indicators of academic quality

Gather data from each college on up to 16 indictors of academic excellence

Each factor is assigned a weight. Colleges and universities in each category

are ranked against their peers, based on their composite weighted score

Ranking Methodology

Ranking Category National Universities &National Liberal Arts College

Regional Universities & Regional College

Undergraduate academic reputation

22.5% 25%

Student selectivity for fall entering class

15% 15%

Faculty resources 20% 20%

Graduation & retention rates 20% 25%

Financial resources 10% 10%

Alumni giving 5% 5%

Graduation rate performance 7.5% 0%

Total 100% 100%

Ranking Category and Weight

Undergraduate Academic Reputation

Sub - Factor Data Collection National Universities & National Liberal Arts College-22.5%

Regional Universities & Regional College-25%

Peer assessment survey

Completed by peer institution administrators;On a scale from 1 to 5;

66.7% (15% of total)

100%(25% of total)

High school counselor’s ratings

Counselors at public and private high school; On a scale from 1 to 5;

33.3%(7.5% of total)

0%

Note: For the first time this year, two most recent survey results (2011 & 2012) were averaged to compute the high school counselor reputation score.

Equation*:

Academic Reputation= Z avg. Peer assessment score * (15%) + Z avg. HS Counselor Score * (7.5%)

Estimates for missing: None

* For National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges

Undergraduate Academic Reputation

Student Selectivity

Sub - Factor Data Collection National Universities & National Liberal Arts College-15%


Acceptance rate Ratio of # admitted to applicants, fall 2011.

10% (1.5 % of total)

10%(1.5 % of total)

High school class standing in top 10%

Proportion of students enrolled who graduated in the top 10%, fall 2011 entering cohort.

40% (6 % of total)

0% (0 % of total)

High school class standing in top 25%

Proportion of students enrolled who graduated in the top 25%, fall 2011 entering cohort.

0% (0 % of total)

40% (6 % of total)

SAT/ACT scores Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT and ACT composite , fall 2011 entering cohort.

50%(7.5 % of total)

50%(7.5 % of total)

Equation*:

Z Student selectivity= Z test score * (50%) + Z high school class standing * (40%) + Z acceptance rate * (10%)

Estimates for missing: one standard deviation less category’s mean

Student Selectivity

* For National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges

Faculty Resources



Faculty compensation

Average faculty pay & benefits, AY 2010-11 and AY2011-12.

35%(7 % of total)

35%(7 % of total)

% Faculty with top terminal degree

% full-time faculty with doctorate or highest in field, current year data.

15% (3 % of total)

15% (3 % of total)

% Faculty full time The proportion of full-time faculty to full-time-equivalent faculty, current year data.

5% (1 % of total)

5%(1 % of total)

Faculty Resources



Student/faculty ratio

Full-time-equivalent students to full-time-equivalent faculty, current fall 2011.

5% (1 % of total)

5%(1 % of total)

Class size, 1-19 students

Percentage of UG classes with fewer than 20 students enrolled, current fall 2011.

30%(6 % of total)

30%(6 % of total)

Class size, 50+ students

Percentage of UG classes with 50 students or more enrolled, current fall 2011.

10%(2% of total)

10%(2% of total)

Equation:

Z Faculty resources= Z avg. salaries * (35%) + Z avg. w/term degree * (15%) + Z faculty ft * (5%) + Z student faculty ratio * (5%) +Z % class <20 * (30%) + Z % class 50 or more * (10%)

Estimates for missing: one standard deviation less category’s mean

Faculty Resources

Graduation and Retention Rates



Average six-year graduation rate

4 year average, fall 2002 through fall 2005 cohort

80% (16 % of total)

80%(20 % of total)

Average freshman 1 year retention rate

4 year average, fall 2007 through fall 2010 cohort

20%(4 % of total)

20%(5% of total)

Equation:

Z Graduation and retention= Z avg. 6-yr grad rate * (80%) + Z avg. fresh retention rate * (20%)

Estimates for missing: IPEDS or NCAA data; Otherwise, one standard deviation less category’s mean

Graduation and Retention Rates

Financial Resources



Financial resources per student

Average spending per FTE student on instruction, research, public service, academic support, students services and institutional support during the FY 2010 and 2011.

100% (10 % of total)

100%(10 % of total)

FTE calculation: full time plus one third of part time.

Alumni Giving



Average alumni giving rate

Average percentage of undergraduate alumni donated to the school.

100% (5% of total)

10% (5% of total)

Graduation Rate Performance

Sub - Factor Data Collection National Universities & National Liberal Arts College-7.5%


Graduation rate performance

Difference between actual six year graduation rate and the predicted graduation rate, cohort 2005.

100% (7.5% of total)

0% (0% of total)

Predicted graduation rate is based upon characteristics of the entering cohort, as well as characteristics of institution.

Rankings categories have been updated◦ Update to Carnegie basic classification (2010)

For-profit institutions are included (2011)◦ All for-profit colleges and universities grant

bachelor’s degree and regionally accredited. Non-responders are handled differently

◦ For schools refused to fill out U.S. News survey for at least two years and for school news to the ranking, made extensive use of data from NCES.

Recent Changes

Now collecting graduation rates of students who received a federal Pell grant, a subsidized Stafford loan but not a Pell grant, and students who received neither.

May add collection of data for affordability and technology◦ Graduation rates by race◦ Net price of attending by EFC◦ Average loan size◦ # of degrees awarded per student◦ Ways colleges using technology (computer

accessibility, wireless Internet, technical support, etc.)

Recent Changes (continued)

Most data come from the college, U.S News Main Survey, Financial Aid Survey

In 2011, 93% of the 1,378 ranked college and universities returned the survey

Obtain missing data from AAUP, National Collegiate Athletics Association, the Council for Aid to Education, and the NCES

Estimates are used in the ranking calculation when schools fail to report particular data points.

Data Sources

Schools are unranked and listed separately by category if ◦ They do Not use the SAT or ACT test scores in

admissions decisions for FTIAC, or◦ Too few respondents to the peer assessment

survey, or◦ Have fewer than 200 total enrollment, or◦ Large proportion of nontraditional students and no

first-year students◦ Also a few highly specialized schools in arts,

business, and engineering

Schools Excluded from the Ranking

AIR members could (& have) provide feedback and suggestions to U.S. News

Two weeks prior to the release of rankings, email alert sent to survey respondents to Main and Fin Aid survey

Free one-month short-terms passes for College Compass One day prior to the official rankings release date, survey

respondents were sent notification and be able to access to two years of published ranking tables in PDF on a non-public website

AIR members can receive U.S. News published ranking table in Excel format (need to send an email to request the Excel spreadsheets to [email protected] or [email protected]

Unpublished rankings available by request (send email to request)

IR and U.S. News Rankings

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

#10 Oversimplification: Comes from Stanford University’s FUNC (Forget US News Coalition) & Reed College who in the mid-90s argued “that ranking something as complex and variable as a college education with a single number is an oversimplification. “ FUNC claimed “that the process makes college administrations focus on numerical rankings rather than on educating students.“ Casper, Gerhard (18 April 1997)

Top 10 Criticisms of US News College Ranking

#9 Peer assessments:◦ College Presidents may have outdated or no

knowledge of institutions they are ranking◦ College Participation among Presidents was

43% in 2011, down 5 percentage points overall.◦ May rank competitors low◦ Low participation rates, amongst high school

counselors

Top 10 Criticisms of US News College Ranking (continued)

#8 Data manipulation: As early as 1994 when the Wall Street Journal disclosed that institutions flagrantly manipulating data in order to move up in the rankings in U.S.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal

#7 Not much weight given to cost of attendance


#6 Academic quality not captured


• #5 Institutional differences not taken into account◦ Diverse student body◦ Institutional mission


#4 Lack of data definition standards in the data collection process.


#3 Proliferation of data collected


#2 Cost / Benefit


#1 ____________________


Thank you for attending.

office of institutional research song yan, kristy maxwell, mark a. byrd associate director senior...

Documents

total high school class

news best colleges

best colleges rankings

best high schools

time worlds best universities

news rankings

private high school

composite weighted score