The Top American Research Universities

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "The Top American Research Universities"

Transcription

1 The Top American Research Universities 2011 Annual Report The Center for Measurg University Performance John V. Lombardi Elizabeth D. Phillips Craig W. Abbey Diane D. Craig

2 ISBN Copyright 2011 The Center for Measurg University Performance at Arizona State University

3 Table of Contents Movg Up: The Marketplace for Federal Research America... 2 Data Tables Part I: The Top American Research Universities Universities g the Top 25 ly Universities g the Top ly Private Universities g the Top 25 among Privates Private Universities g the Top among Privates Public Universities g the Top 25 among Publics Public Universities g the Top among Publics Medical and Specialized Research Universities g the Top Private Medical and Specialized Research Universities g the Top Public Medical and Specialized Research Universities g the Top Part II: MUP Research Universities Total Research Expenditures Federal Research Expenditures Research by Major Disciple Endowment Assets Annual Givg Academy Membership Faculty Awards Doctorates Awarded Postdoctoral Appotees SAT Scores Merit Scholars and Achievement Scholars : Research : Private Support and Doctorates : Students Institutional Characteristics Student Characteristics MUP Measures MUP Measures Federal Research with and without Medical School Research Part III: The Top 200 Institutions Total Research Expenditures () Federal Research Expenditures () Endowment Assets () Annual Givg () Academy Membership () Faculty Awards () Doctorates Awarded () Postdoctoral Appotees () SAT Scores () Merit Scholars () Source Notes Data Notes Annual Report 1

4 Movg Up: The Marketplace for Federal Research America * by Diane D. Craig and John V. Lombardi Everyone wants to get better, to move up with the hierarchy of American research universities. While the pursuit of the mythical number one is a magical quest, good research universities consistently benchmark their relative performance on a variety of measures to know whether they are gettg better faster than their competition. Frequently, universities avoid a comparative assessment, reportg stead any absolute creases their research and other performance dicators to their various constituencies of alumni, faculty, students, and public officials. Comparative measures are often less satisfyg dicators of improvement than absolute creases because stitutions may get better but not fast enough to catch a competition that also improves. Benchmarkg allows stitutions to see not only how they have improved on their past performance, but also how their performance compares to the competition. We emphasize this because normal rankg methodologies tend to highlight small changes the relative position of adjacent stitutions on an ordered list. These changes can be the result of real improvement or a decle performance of an stitution slightly higher the list. When the market for university research expands by more than an dividual stitution's improvement, however, the university can lose market share spite of dog better. The Marketplace: Structural Inequality The dicator most consistently used to measure stitutional performance among research universities is the annual expenditures from federal fundg sources. The amount of federally funded grant money has creased consistently over the years with the result that stitutions can see an crease their absolute level of federally sponsored research, but this absolute crease does not mean they have creased more than their competitors. An crease a particular year may put them ahead, behd, or just even with their closest competitors. Figure 1 shows that over the past twenty years, academic science and engeerg research expenditures from all sources have creased by $38.6 billion or 237%. Federal research expenditures show a similar rate of growth, creasg by nearly $23 billion durg this period. Even after adjustg for flation, Figure 2 illustrates that federal research expenditures constant dollars grew by $13.5 billion or 70%. If a university has not creased their federal research expenditures by more than this, they are not movg up the competition. As universities contue to vest research competition, they need to have a clear understandg of the changes the amount of federal dollars available for research, and the very difficult task of movg up faster than the competition is movg up. We discuss here this structure of the federal research-fundg Fig. 1 Fig Total and Federal Research: Total Federal Total and Federal Research: Constant Dollars Total Constant Federal Constant Billions 30 Billions * The Top American Research Universities (TARU), published annually sce Of particular terest for this discussion, see the followg essays previous editions: Introduction and The University, TARU 2001 (2001) 3-35; over Time, TARU 2004 (2004), 21-25; Deconstructg University gs: Medice and Engeerg, and Sgle Campus Research Competitiveness, TARU 2005, (2005 Corrected), 3-25; Introduction, TARU, () 2-5. The annual reports and the data for most dicators for the years sce at least 1999 are available at [http://mup.asu.edu]. 2 The Center for Measurg University Performance

5 marketplace. Institutional improvement is a difficult and challengg task, requires significant vestment over time, and a consistent strategy for measurg performance with the competitive marketplace. Fig Growth Federal Research: Constant Dollars Periodically we have reviewed the US federal research marketplace to understand its structure and to assess the mobility of participants with it. The top American research universities, which we now defe as those with at least $40 million annual federal research expenditures, tend to susta high levels of performance and mata their relative position with the marketplace over time. Those much lower on the scale change their relative position much more frequently and significantly. At the higher levels of research performance, the dollar amounts volved are large and improvement sufficient to change rank requires a major crease research performance. At lower levels, the difference separatg nearby stitutions is much smaller, and rank change at these lower levels occurs more frequently. A relatively few top performers among research stitutions control a large percentage of the market and this concentration remas stable over time. Figure 3 shows the domance of the top research universities over the past 20 years. Even though as a group the large number of stitutions with less than $40 million grew at a faster pace percentage terms, these stitutions have a small amount of federal research and only control 8% of market. The distribution of federal research expenditures is clearly unequal, with a relatively small number of top performg stitutions controllg a high proportion of fundg. For a clearer picture of the shape of this distribution, we adopted a well-known tool from the analysis of come equality, Billions Federal Research grew by 70% flamation-adjusted dollars between 1990 and. Over $40M Public Universities grew by 77% Over $40M Private Universities grew by 57% All other universities grew by 92% the Gi dex, to an analysis of the federal research expenditures of the stitutions cluded the Top American Research Universities. The Gi dex provides a measure of the relative equality (or equality) of a distribution of resources among a group of dividual units (or people/ households the case of come). An dex of 100 means complete equality, where one member of the group has all the resources and everyone else has none. An dex of 0 represents complete equality the distribution where every member of the group has the same share of the resource measured. Fig. 4 Gi Index Selected Countries Sweden Germany Canada France United Kgdom India Japan Venezuela Russia Kenya Iran United States Argenta Cha Mexico Columbia South Africa Source: CIA - The World Factbook 2011 Annual Report 3

6 Indexes of this type are sometimes difficult to terpret tuitively, but the Gi dex has some real world applications that give familiar reference pots. The Gi dex frequently appears as an dicator of the equality of come distribution with national populations, and policy analysis often compares the Gi dexes of different countries. World data on come distributions provide a range of Gi dexes from 23, for Sweden with the most equal distribution of come, to 65 for South Africa, among those countries with the most unequal distributions (Figure 4). By itself, of course, a Gi dex does not tell the whole story of any distribution of come, as the data may not capture the total economic benefit, cludg but not limited to cash payments or government assistance, received by any nation's dividuals. With these elements of unrecorded come absent, the Gi dex may show a more unequal distribution than is actually the case. For our purposes, however the data for federal research expenditures are relatively straightforward because universities compete for federal research awards the same way usg the same process. Differences the success of stitutions engaged this competition have many components well worth examation (and we have looked at some the past), but the actual equality the results of this competition is rather clearly dicated by the analysis of federal research expenditures. As those who follow these reports know, we analyze expenditures rather than awards to focus on the current performance of federally sponsored research rather than the future performance represented by awards. The Gi dex of the federal research expenditures of the approximately 700 stitutions that report any federal research expenditures demonstrates the dramatic equality this distribution with an dex of 82. This distribution is a little more unequal than the most unequal country come distribution the world. However, this is not particularly useful sce a large number of the stitutions at the bottom of the research distribution are not significant participants the competition and have only a token amount of federal research (Table 5). By cludg only the top 200 stitutions that together clude nearly 95% of the federal research expenditures, we get a Gi dex of 49 that reflects a more equal distribution. If we narrow the focus somewhat aga by concentratg on a top group of 163 stitutions with over $40 million federal research expenditures, the equality among them decles somewhat to a Gi dex of 43. Some of these data may well be susceptible to clearer terpretation if we make some further adjustments to the stitutional data set. For example, we know that the presence of a medical school often helps a university achieve a higher rank on federal research expenditures, a reflection of the significant fundg available for biologically based and medically related federal research vestments over many years. By removg the primarily medical stitutions from our data set, and by adjustg the federal research expenditures reported for universities to exclude medical school research as reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), we can assess the relative distribution of expenditures among the top universities without the possible distortion troduced by medical schools. With this revised data set, the Gi dex of the distribution of federal research expenditures among the top performg universities on non-medical school related research decles only slightly to 42. A fal illustration (also shown Table 5) calculates the Gi dex for the medical stitutions and the medical school research of universities with medical schools (excluded from the previous analysis). Even among these top performg medically focused stitutions, the equality identified is significant at 45. When we run the analysis to clude all medical schools with federal research with the 700 stitutions that receive federal fundg, the equality is even greater as evidenced by a Gi dex of 56, primarily because many medical schools this larger group do not specialize research. For close observers of the competition for research fundg the United States, this equality fundg among the participants comes as no surprise. The Gi dex analysis provides a statistical measure that identifies a significant Table 5 Gi Index: Measurg Inequality Distribution of Federal Research Expenditures All Institutions Top 200 Federal Research Over $40M Federal Research Over $40M Federal Excludg Standalones and Medical Research Over $40M Standalone Medical Institutions and Medical Research All Standalone Medical Institutions and Medical Research We clude The Johns Hopks University, a major outlier the federal research expenditure data, these analyses because its clusion has a mor impact on the Gi analysis and does not distort the other discussion of relative stitutional performance. 4 The Center for Measurg University Performance

7 structural characteristic of this marketplace that we have discussed before. Individual stitutions competg for federal research dollars need to understand the characteristics of this marketplace to guide their planng and vestment. Although the structural characteristics are significant, the mobility possible with this marketplace is an important consideration for stitutions seekg research improvement. To evaluate the competitive challenge of research vestment, it is helpful to know the experience of dividual stitutions as they attempt to improve their position with this competition. Institutions and their constituents want to know whether it is possible to improve a university s performance by creasg its market share of federally funded research, and, if so, by how much and over what time period. Has it been possible, by how much and over what time, to improve an stitution's relative performance and crease their market share of federally funded research? Although the amount of federal funds available has creased each year, the annual federal research competition is a zero sum game. Each year the number of competitors that choose to participate can crease or decrease, but the federal agency budgets substantially fix the amount of federal research available for each annual round of competition. The federal research expenditures of each stitution is the cumulative result of several rounds of competition, sce the awards each competition may be for one, two, or as many as five years, and a considerable portion of fundg represents renewals of previous awards. When we look at research improvement through federal research expenditures, we automatically clude a smoothg function that evens out the variability awards for each round of the competition. In some years, an dividual university will receive a large award, but it may be for a five-year project while another university will receive several smaller awards for two-year projects. By usg expenditures we account for this variability awards, we measure the actual research accomplish by the proxy of the amount spent that year, and we create a better representation of the contug success of stitutions that engage the annual federal zero-sum research competition. This competition is constraed by the structural characteristics of the marketplace. With the top 150 to 200 performers, mostly the same stitutions compete every year. This competition is an essential element of their stitutional design and mission and they must participate to rema major research universities with the United States. Success this competition is a function of vestment and careful management of stitutional subsidies over time. Research is one of the university's loss leaders. Almost no research reflected this competition pays its full costs. Instead, the federal research expenditures reflect only a partial reimbursement of the stitution's vestment that research. Universities need to understand the opportunities and constrats of the research marketplace as they budget funds to subsidize competitive research activities. Although our previous review of the data dicates considerable stability over time the relative success of stitutions acquirg federal research fundg, we have applied the Gi dex analysis to our data as another method for identifyg changes the relative distribution of fundg over time. For example, although an stitution may improve its performance relative to those above it the distribution, the changes, if limited to nearby competitors, will produce different rankgs for the dividual universities but leave the generally unequal distribution of federal research unchanged. Because improvement this zero sum game generally comes from one stitution creasg while another decreases its federal expenditures, this tradg places does not necessarily change the structural equality of the distribution. To look at the persistence of equality, we calculated Gi dexes at different times from our data sets on federal research expenditures. The tables cluded below offer mixed results. For all stitutions between 1990 and, the dex remas virtually constant at a high equality value of 80 and 82, respectively. (Table 6) Calculatg the dex separately for private stitutions identified a slight Table 6 Gi Index: Federal Research Expenditures All Institutions All Private Institutions All Public Institutions Over $40M Federal Research Over $40M Private Institutions Over $40M Public Institutions Standalone Medical Institutions Universities with a Medical School Annual Report 5

8 crease equality while public stitutions remaed at about the same level over the years. However, if we focus on the top performg stitutions with over $40 million federal expenditures, a consistent reduction equality takes place, with a Gi dex of declg to a somewhat less unequal distribution of 43. In this high performg group, there is little difference trend by control (public vs. private) of stitution. If we look at the two medically related groups of research competitors discussed above, we see some modest change equality over time. Standalone medical stitutions that are not part of affiliated universities decled slightly their Gi dex sce 1990 while university-based medical schools saw a somewhat larger decrease over time. The latter is partly due to fewer universities with medical schools competg for federal dollars (119) than competed 1990 and 1999 (150). Although the differences equality identified here may be of some terest, the analysis generally shows that the university research marketplace is relatively stable over time, with only mor adjustments to the equality that is one of its primary structural characteristics. As our previous studies have shown, there is considerable movement the rank order of universities on their federal research expenditures over time, but the structural equality highlighted by the Gi dex analysis illustrates that much of this movement takes place among stitutions with the same general band of performance. The changes rank do not significantly affect the structural characteristics of the marketplace. The Marketplace: Stability To understand the stability of this marketplace we explored another method for illustratg change. We took the data from the group of universities and research centers that had any federal research expenditures between 1990 and. We then removed standalone medical schools and medical centers, specialized stitutions, and research centers to leave us with a set of recognizable research universities. We converted the federal research expenditures for each year to constant dollars. We then ranked the stitutions each year on their federal research expenditures. For each year, we sorted the stitutions by federal research expenditures ( constant dollars). We focused on the top 150 stitutions each year, dividg them to six groups of 25 descendg order. We then calculated for each year the percent of the total federal research expenditures represented by the top 150 (out of all the research reported by the over 600 reportg) and then calculated the share of the top 150 total controlled by each of the groups of 25. This procedure allows us to see the stability of the distribution of federal research expenditures over time. As expected, each year between 1990 and, the top 150 universities, from which we have constructed the six groups of 25, controlled from 95.1% to 92.9% of the Fig. 7 Market Share of Top 150 Institutiomns Federal Research Expenditures % % Number of Institutions Reportg Federal Research Number of Institutions Top 150 Market Share 94.5% 94.0% 93.5% 93.0% Market Share of Top 150 Federal Research % % 6 The Center for Measurg University Performance

9 total federal research expenditures. The decle percentage controlled represents the significant vestment by many additional universities research performance over these years and an crease the number of universities participatg the federal research competition from 502 to 658. Figure 7 shows the growth players over time and the market share loss of the top group, but even when numbers of stitutions are stable and the research performance of stitutions improves there is still a decle market share. The expansion of the competitive field nonetheless left the top 150 with their overwhelmg domance of the competition. Individual universities often focus on year-to-year changes rank or only on absolute improvements research achievements, but the actual difference performance between universities of similar rank can be rather small. We focus here on groups of universities that share similar levels of performance. We took the top six groups of 25 universities and calculated their market shares for each year. Table 8 provides the results of this distribution. Although there are some trends these data, they reflect relatively small changes market share. The largest impact is the slightly reduced share captured by the top 25 stitutions over these years, declg from a 49.4% to a 45.4% share. The lost share appears to have shifted downward to the second 25, a group that gas two pots from 21.8% to 23.9%, and some smaller shifts to lower groups. This may reflect a somewhat broader distribution of federal grants among universities, resultg perhaps from policy itiatives at federal agencies as well as from creased vestment research competition by the universities themselves. Overall, however, this distribution highlights the stable structural characteristic of this marketplace with the domance of the top stitutions clearly and contuously visible, as is clear Figure 9. Throughout the 20-year period Table 8 Market Share of Top 150 by Group of 25 Group with Top 150 Universities Top % 48.7% % % % 82 Second % 21.8% % % % 49 Third % 13.5% % % % 43 Fourth % 8.1% % % % 42 Fifth % 5.0% % % % 45 Sixth % 3.0% % % % 56 Fig % Market Share of the 150 Top Performers on Federal Research % 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Sixth 25 Fifth 25 Fourth 25 Third 25 Second 25 Top 25 0% Annual Report 7

10 summarized here, the top 25 stitutions control at least 45% of all the federal research expenditures of the top 150 stitutions. The next group controls about half as much of the market the low 20% range, and the third group contas around 13%. Clearly, each group of 25 universities competes for a smaller and smaller percentage of the total amount, and this means that creasgly smaller amounts of change an dividual university s research expenditures will produce equivalent changes rank order with the groups. Another way to look at the structure of this distribution is to measure how much it would take to move the middle stitution each group to the midpot of the group above it. The purpose of this kd of approach is to identify the challenge faced by universities that commit themselves to the vestment required to make a major change their competitive position. For each year, we sorted the 150 top stitutions to descendg order by constant federal research expenditures, and then divided them to the six groups of 25 as the previous exercises. For each year, we identified the median constant dollar amount of federal research expenditures for each group and then calculated the percent crease that would be required to move that median stitution to the median of the next highest group. This would represent an crease of 25 positions the rank order between the median of one group to the median of the next highest group. As Table 10 dicates, this goal of movg from the middle of one group to the middle of another group offers a major challenge. These data show some considerable variability year to year, but the percent creases required to achieve a major repositiong with this competition are nonetheless large. At the top level, to move from the second tier median to the first tier median takes from 74% 1999 to 71%. At most tiers, the percentage growth required today is less than that 1999 but adjustg for flation the actual dollar crease needed to move to another tier is much higher. With the hundreds of millions of dollars volved these categories, the crease from group two to group one would be about $180 million. A move from the median of group three to the median of group two would take $118 million additional research expenditures, while movg from the other groups to the one above would take about $20 to $46 million more expenditure. These two reference pots dicate the strong structure of this marketplace over the past decade and highlight the major effort needed to move an stitution a significant distance with this competitive context. Table 10 Increase Federal Research Expenditures to Move to Next Higher Group In, to move from: Group 2 to Group 1 Group 3 to Group 2 Group 4 to Group 3 Group 5 to Group 4 Group 6 to Group 5 In 1999, to move from: Group 2 to Group 1 Group 3 to Group 2 Group 4 to Group 3 Group 5 to Group 4 Group 6 to Group 5 In 1990, to move from: Group 2 to Group 1 Group 3 to Group 2 Group 4 to Group 3 Group 5 to Group 4 Group 6 to Group 5 Requires this approximate crease federal research ( constant dollars): $179.5 M $117.7 M $45.6 M $31.8 M $19.8 M $134.1 M $71.8 M $47.3 M $24.9 M $13.8 M $132.7 M $45.6 M $34.3 M $23.7 M $11.9 M Or an estimated crease of: 71% 88% 51% 56% 53% 74% 66% 76% 67% 59% 100% 53% 65% 82% 70% 8 The Center for Measurg University Performance

11 The Marketplace: Changg Places However, even with this highly structured market, some important changes are visible Table 10 over a longer period. If we extend the analysis to reach back to 1990, we can see a significant trend towards a broadeng of the competition among the top 150 stitutions. The percent crease needed to move from the median of group two to the median of group one decles from a high of 100% 1990 to 71%. However, the percent crease needed to move from the median of group three to the median of group two creases from 53% 1990 to 88%. Thus, the primary broadeng of competition takes place among the top 50 stitutions; mostly it would appear from a narrowg of the gap between the top 25 and the second 25 stitutions. This likely reflects the contued vestment by stitutions the second tier to acquire the faculty and frastructure required for successful competition for federal funds over the past decades. Much academic discussion has accompanied this creased emphasis on research performance, focusg on stitutional vestment patterns, faculty priorities, and stitutional missions. The research game America's stitutions appears to have shifted from a predomantly top 25 competition to top 50 or top 75 competitions. Further evidence of the behavior of this marketplace comes from an analysis of the movement of dividual stitutions with the rank orderg of universities by their federal research expenditures. There are various ways to observe the changes rank order of stitutions. We could look at the order 1990 and see how persistent this rank order remas over the years until. Alternatively, we could take the rank order and see how many of these stitutions rank reflects matenance of their competitive position sce 1990 or changes up or down over those years. Sce the competition is a current competition, what counts most is where each stitution is today, and its actions can only affect what happens the future. In that context, we looked at the current rank results and then identified rank movement sce 1990 that produced the rankg. This, as our previous analysis suggests, should show relatively little movement the top 25 category and considerably more movement as we spect the 150 stitutions cluded this review. [Table 11]. The mobility of universities over the past two decades varies significantly by group. In the top group of 25 universities, between 1990 and six universities moved to this elite company from the second 25. This, of course, means that six universities fell out of the top 25 along the way between 1990 and. There is also some movement relative position with the top 25 among those stitutions remag that group but none movg by more than ne rank positions up or down with the 20 years reviewed here. This result clearly dicates that even over a long period, significant movement to (and out of) the top rank of American research universities is difficult to achieve. Indeed, only one stitution moved on average more than one rank position a year to reach the top 25, and all but that stitution moved to the top group from a relatively high position with the second group. In the rankgs, the second group of stitutions ranked between 26 and 50 had seven universities move to this group from the groups below and six fall out of the group between 1990 and. Of those movg up to the second group, all but one had medical schools. Of those fallg out of the first group to this second group, only two had a medical school. Over the past twenty years, most significant university improvement rank volves movg one group up or down. In these shifts rank order, we can see examples of stitutions that mataed their research volume constant dollars sce 1990 but nonetheless fell significantly rank order because other stitutions creased their performance. As we have observed above, it is never enough to stay even a marketplace where all competitors seek to crease their share. The experience reflected these data clearly dicate that the tense competition for federal research awards and the subsequent reflection of cumulative results of that competition the annual federal research expenditure produces a constantly changg hierarchy of stitutions. Most change, as is visible Table 11, is relatively small, year-to-year, reflectg upward or downward movement by a position or two consecutive years. Over longer periods, however, a small number of stitutions moved at least 12 places, a distance that would move them from the bottom of one 25-stitution group to the median or from the median to the top. At the top level of performance, this amount of improvement represents a major achievement and only three universities moved more than 12 places although two others were close at 12 position improvements. In the second group seven stitutions improved by more than 12 places, and the third group eight achieved this level of improvement. At the same time, stitutions each group decled performance as well, with four the second group and five the third group declg by more than 12 places. The data for the other groups follow similar patterns with some stitutions enterg the group from the one above and others from the ones below, but the size of the rank changes are significantly larger, dicatg the smaller amount of dollars needed to move up or down at lower levels of research performance. Although the structure of the federal research marketplace is stable over time, terms of the aggregate research success of the universities each of the six groups of 25, the competitive performance of dividual stitutions varies considerably from year to year throughout the period. Some stitutions rise the competition while 2011 Annual Report 9

12 others fall by widely varyg margs. If we focus on the 75 dividual stitutions the top three groups, we see that over the past almost two decades, most of these stitutions have moved up and down the list sce Only four stitutions have the same rank that they had Some 43 stitutions ended up with at least one position better than they had 1990 while 28 stitutions had a rank at least one position worse than If we focus on the most recent period from 1999 to, the amount of movement sce 1999 reflected the rankg on federal research expenditures shows that 36 stitutions improved by at least one position, cludg five that improved by more than 12 positions to arrive at their position. In the same period, 32 stitutions decled one position or more but only two stitutions lost more than 12 places rank. At the extreme ends of the competitive performance, the stitution with the largest improvement over these most recent years (1999-) moved up rank by 28 places and the university with the largest decle fell by 23 places. When we look at the rankgs for each stitution dividually throughout the years 1990 to we observe a constant movement up and down over the years, with the current rank simply the momentary observance of a relative position that may well change by one or two places subsequent years. Although four stitutions mataed the same position as they had 1990, three of them nonetheless moved up and down durg the terveng years, with the pluses and muses balancg out. Only Johns Hopks remaed unchanged throughout this period. In many cases, over the long period surveyed here, there may well be particular circumstances of dividual universities that expla significant changes rank order the past two decades, and without a careful dividual review of each stitution's history, it is probably unwise to draw stitutionally specific conclusions most cases. Nonetheless, as this review would appear to dicate, the characteristics of the American research university marketplace for federal research dollars have remaed relatively stable and consistent over at least the last two decades. The Marketplace: Summary This is a marketplace characterized by more than 600 competitors, but only 150 significant participants. Among those 150 participants, the top 25 domate with around 45% market share. The 150 participants demonstrate considerable mobility with this highly structured marketplace, but most of the significant movement occurs the third through sixth group of 25 stitutions. The smaller the market share (the smaller the amount of federal research expenditures) the more stitutional mobility is possible because the amount of research improvement or loss required to change rank is much less than the top two groups. As stitutions improve their position with this marketplace, the next improvement becomes harder to achieve, as the distance to the next group grows larger. Although this marketplace is highly concentrated at the top with much stability the rankgs the top groups, over the almost two decades of these data, the concentration has decled some as more stitutions have entered the competition, and more stitutions already the competition have contued to vest heavily. As we have observed before, the most significant element research university competition is the amount of money consistently available to vest research and, we should add from this review, the amount of market share already captured previous years. 10 The Center for Measurg University Performance

13 Table 11 among Six Groups of the Top 150 Institutions sce 1990 Institutions Reportg Federal Research Expenditures, excludg Standalone Medical and Other Specialized Institutions ( constant $000) Group 1 Rk Grp 2004 Rk Grp 1999 Rk Grp 1994 Rk Grp 1990 Rk Grp Johns Hopks University 1,587, ,481, ,138, ,217, ,189, Univ. of Michigan - Ann Arbor 636, , , , , Univ. of Washgton - Seattle 619, , , , , Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. 532, , , , , Univ. of California - San Diego 511, , , , , Univ. of Wiscons - Madison 507, , , , , University of Pennsylvania 499, , , , , Columbia University 483, , , , , Stanford University 477, , , , , U. of California - Los Angeles 467, , , , , U. of Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh 463, , , , , Duke University 438, , , , , U. of North Carola - Chapel Hill 431, , , , , Washgton Univ. St. Louis 414, , , , , U. of Mnesota - Tw Cities 390, , , , , Penn. St. Univ. - Univ. Park 386, , , , , Harvard University 385, , , , , Yale University 378, , , , , Univ. of Southern California 375, , , , , Ohio State Univ. - Columbus 339, , , , , Vanderbilt University 336, , , , , Georgia Inst. of Technology 322, , , , , Case Western Reserve Univ. 313, , , , , University of Texas - Aust 309, , , , , California Inst. of Technology 305, , , , , Group 2 Rk Grp 2004 Rk Grp 1999 Rk Grp 1994 Rk Grp 1990 Rk Grp University of Chicago 301, , , , , Northwestern University 300, , , , , Univ. of Alabama - Birmgham 300, , , , , University of Rochester 295, , , , , University of California - Davis 295, , , , , Emory University 295, , , , , U. of Ill. - Urbana-Champaign 288, , , , , University of Arizona 287, , , , , Univ. of California - Berkeley 262, , , , , Texas A&M University 261, , , , , Univ. of Colorado - Denver 256, , , , , Boston University 255, , , , , University of Iowa 252, , , , , U. of Maryland - College Park 246, , , , , Univ. of Colorado - Boulder 239, , , , , Cornell University 238, , , , , University of Florida 232, , , , , Univ. of Ccnati - Ccnati 229, , , , , University of Virgia 218, , , , , Colorado State University 211, , , , , University of Hawaii - Manoa 203, , , , , New York University 202, , , , , University of Illois - Chicago 196, , , , , University of Utah 192, , , , , Univ. of South Florida - Tampa 190, , , , , Annual Report 11

14 Table 11, cont. Group 3 Rk Grp 2004 Rk Grp 1999 Rk Grp 1994 Rk Grp 1990 Rk Grp University of California - Irve 177, , , , , Purdue Univ. - West Lafayette 175, , , , , University of Miami 172, , , , , Carnegie Mellon University 170, , , , , Michigan State University 164, , , , , University at Buffalo 152, , , , , Rutgers - State University of NJ 151, , , , , Virgia Polytechnic Inst. & St. U. 148, , , , , University of Kentucky 145, , , , , Wake Forest University 144, , , , , Yeshiva University 137, , , , , North Carola State University 135, , , , , Arizona State University 134, , , , , Dartmouth College 134, , , , , U. of New Mexico - Albuquerque 133, , , , , Prceton University 128, , , , , Georgetown University 119, , , , , Indiana U. - Purdue U. - Indianapolis 119, , , , , Univ. of Missouri - Columbia 118, , , , , Oregon State University 118, , , , , Florida State University 117, , , , , Wayne State University 116, , , , , U. of California - Santa Barbara 113, , , , , Tulane University 109, , , , , U. of South Carola - Columbia 107, , , , , Group 4 Rk Grp 2004 Rk Grp 1999 Rk Grp 1994 Rk Grp 1990 Rk Grp Stony Brook University 107, , , , , University of Georgia 106, , , , , University of Alaska - Fairbanks 105, , , , , Mississippi State University 102, , , , , Tufts University 102, , , , , Virgia Commonwealth Univ. 97, , , , , University at Albany 96, , , , , Iowa State University 96, , , , , Washgton State U. - Pullman 95, , , , , Brown University 93, , , , , University of Vermont 92, , , , , Univ. of Tennessee - Knoxville 91, , , , , George Washgton University 88, , , , , New Mexico St. U. - Las Cruces 88, , , , , University of Delaware 87, , , , , Louisiana St. U. - Baton Rouge 86, , , , , Utah State University 84, , , , , University of Nebraska - Lcoln 83, , , , , U. of Massachusetts - Amherst 80, , , , , U. of New Hampshire - Durham 78, , , , , Indiana Univ. - Bloomgton 78, , , , , Univ. of California - Santa Cruz 76, , , , , Naval Postgraduate School 75, , , , , Rockefeller University 73, , , , , Univ. of Kansas - Lawrence 73, , , , , The Center for Measurg University Performance

15 Table 11, cont. Group 5 Rk Grp 2004 Rk Grp 1999 Rk Grp 1994 Rk Grp 1990 Rk Grp University of Louisville 72, , , , , Montana State Univ. - Bozeman 71, , , , , University of Dayton 70, , , , , Drexel University 67, , , , , Temple University 65, , , , , University of Central Florida 65, , , , , West Virgia University 64, , , , , University of Nevada - Reno 63, , , , , University of Oregon 61, , , , , New Mexico Inst. of M. & Tech. 61, , , , , Kansas State University 57, , , , , University of Notre Dame 57, , , , , University of Rhode Island 57, , , , , Rice University 56, , , , , George Mason University 55, , , , , Clemson University 55, , , , , Univ. of California - Riverside 53, , , , , Univ. of Alabama - Huntsville 53, , , , , U. of Maryland - Baltimore Cty. 53, , , , , Florida International University 53, , , , Auburn University 52, , , , , Univ. of Connecticut - Storrs 51, , , , , University of North Dakota 49, , , , , Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. 48, , , , , University of Mae - Orono 47, , , , , Group 6 Rk Grp 2004 Rk Grp 1999 Rk Grp 1994 Rk Grp 1990 Rk Grp North Dakota State University 43, , , , , San Diego State University 42, , , , , New Jersey Institute of Tech. 42, , , , , University of Idaho 42, , , , , Univ. of Oklahoma - Norman 41, , , , , Univ. of Southern Mississippi 41, , , , , Brandeis University 40, , , , , Univ. of Houston - Univ. Park 40, , , , , Oklahoma St. Univ. - Stillwater 39, , , , , Univ. of Mississippi - Oxford 38, , , , , U.S. Air Force Academy 38, , , , , Northeastern University 38, , , , , Jackson State University 37, , , , , Univ. of Montana - Missoula 36, , , , , Sat Louis Univ. - St. Louis 33, , , , , Univ. of Arkansas - Fayetteville 31, , , , , Univ. of Nevada - Las Vegas 31, , , , , Howard University 30, , , , , University of Wyomg 29, , , , , University of Texas - El Paso 29, , , , , University of Toledo 29, , , , , Loma Lda University 29, , , , , Old Domion University 27, , , , , Michigan Technological Univ. 27, , , , , Univ. of Texas - San Antonio 26, , , , Annual Report 13

16 14 The Center for Measurg University Performance

17 Part I The Top American Research Universities The Center for Measurg University Performance determes the Top American Research Universities by their rank on ne different measures: Total Research, Federal Research, Endowment Assets, Annual Givg, Academy Members, Faculty Awards, Doctorates Granted, Postdoctoral Appotees, and SAT scores. (The Source Notes section of this study provides detailed formation on each of the ne dicators.) The tables group research stitutions accordg to how many times they rank the top 25 on each of these ne measures. The top category cludes those universities that rank the top 25 on all ne dicators. The bottom category cludes universities with only one of the ne measures ranked the top 25. With these groups, stitutions are then sorted by how many times they rank between 26 and 50 on the ne performance variables, with ties listed alphabetically. A similar methodology produces a second set of stitutions those ranked 26 through 50 on the same ne measures. For the purpose of this study, The Center for Measurg University Performance cludes only those stitutions that had at least $40 million federal research expenditures fiscal year. This is the same dollar cutoff used sce the report. There were 163 stitutions who met our criteria, 116 public and 47 private. The first two tables list each stitution with the most current data available for each measure and its correspondg national rank (i.e., rank among all stitutions regardless of whether they are privately or publicly controlled). The third through sixth tables provide the same ne data measures but with the groupgs determed by the control rank (i.e., rank among all private or all public stitutions). Institutions rankg the top 25 on at least one measure are cluded the tables with the (1-25) identifier, while those rankg 26 through 50 are found the tables labeled with the (26-50) header. Many research universities rank highly both nationally and among their public or private peers, and therefore appear more than one table. The Top American Research Universities (1-25) identifies the 49 stitutions (24 private, 25 public) that rank the top 25 nationally on at least one of the ne measures. The Top American Research Universities (26-50) identifies the 31 stitutions (9 private, 22 public) that rank 26 through 50 nationally on at least one of the ne measures. The Top Private Research Universities (1-25) identifies the 30 private stitutions that rank the top 25 among all private universities on at least one of the ne measures. The Top Private Research Universities (26-50) identifies the 7 private stitutions that rank 26 through 50 among their private counterparts on at least one of the ne measures. The Top Public Research Universities (1-25) identifies the 43 public stitutions that rank the top 25 among all public universities on at least one of the ne measures. The Top Public Research Universities (26-50) identifies the 27 public stitutions that rank 26 through 50 among their public counterparts on at least one of the ne measures. The Top Medical and Specialized Research Universities tables identify the stitutions that have at least one measure that ranks top 50 nationally and among their private and public counterparts. Data found these tables may not always match the figures published by the origal source. The Center for Measurg University Performance makes adjustments, when necessary, to ensure that the data reflect the activity at a sgle campus rather than that of a multiple-campus stitution or state university system. When data are missg from the origal source, The Center for Measurg University Performance may substitute another figure, if available. A full discussion of this subject, and the various adjustments or substitutions made to the origal data, is the Data Notes section of this report. The Center for Measurg University Performance presents these tables, along with prior years top universities, Microsoft Excel spreadsheets on its website [http://mup.asu.edu] Annual Report 15

18 Top American Research Universities (1-25) Research Private Institutions Order of Top 25 Score, then Top Score, then Alphabetically Number of Measures Top 25 ly Number of Measures Top ly Total Research Federal Research Endowment Assets Private Columbia University , , ,516,512 7 Private Massachusetts Institute of Technology , , ,317,321 5 Private Stanford University , , ,851,115 4 Private University of Pennsylvania , , ,668, Private Harvard University , , ,557,404 1 Private Duke University , , ,823, Public University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 8 0 1,007, , ,564,144 6 Private Washgton University St. Louis , , ,473, Private Johns Hopks University 7 2 1,856, ,587, ,219, Private Yale University , , ,652,000 2 Public University of California - Berkeley , , ,599, Public University of California - Los Angeles , , ,161, Public University of Washgton - Seattle , , ,829, Public University of Wiscons - Madison , , ,852, Public University of Mnesota - Tw Cities , , ,195, Public University of North Carola - Chapel Hill , , ,979, Public University of Texas - Aust , , ,436,007 8 Private Northwestern University , , ,945,277 9 Private University of Southern California , , ,947, Public University of California - San Diego , , , Private University of Chicago , , ,638, Public Ohio State University - Columbus , , ,869, Public University of Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh , , ,032, Private Vanderbilt University , , ,044, Public Texas A&M University , , ,224, Public University of Illois - Urbana-Champaign , , , Private Prceton University , , ,391,450 3 Private Cornell University , , ,393, Private California Institute of Technology , , ,545, Public Penn. State University - University Park , , ,012, Public University of Florida , , ,104, Private New York University , , ,370, Private University of Notre Dame , , ,234, Private Emory University , , ,694, Public University of California - Davis , , , Private Dartmouth College , , ,998, Private Rice University , , ,786, Public Purdue University - West Lafayette , , ,633, Public Georgia Institute of Technology , , ,386, Public Michigan State University , , ,449, Public University of Virgia , , ,906, Public University of Arizona , , , Public University of Maryland - College Park , , , Private Case Western Reserve University , , ,462, Public University of California - Irve , , , Private Brown University , , ,155, Public University of California - Santa Barbara , , , Public Arizona State University , , , Private Tufts University , , ,213, The Center for Measurg University Performance

19 Support Faculty Advanced Trag Undergraduate Annual Givg Academy Members Faculty Awards Doctorates Granted Post Docs Median SAT 402, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Annual Report 17

20 Top American Research Universities (26-50) Research Private Institutions Order of Top Score, then Alphabetically Number of Measures Top ly Total Research Federal Research Endowment Assets Public University of Iowa 6 329, , , Private University of Rochester 5 395, , ,367, Public University of Colorado - Boulder 4 288, , , Private Boston University 3 280, , , Public Rutgers - State University of NJ - New Brunswick 3 320, , , Public University of Utah 3 331, , , Private Carnegie Mellon University 2 217, , , Public Indiana University - Bloomgton 2 156, , , Public North Carola State University 2 380, , , Public University of Alabama - Birmgham 2 431, , , Public University of Ccnati - Ccnati 2 356, , , Public University of Colorado - Denver 2 352, , , Public Virgia Polytechnic Institute and State University 2 396, , , Private Brandeis University 1 62, , , Public Colorado State University 1 304, , , Public Florida State University 1 195, , , Private George Washgton University 1 99, , ,143, Private Georgetown University 1 147, , ,009, Public Indiana University-Purdue University - Indianapolis 1 283, , , Private Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1 77, , , Public University at Buffalo 1 338, , , Public University of California - Santa Cruz 1 144, , , Public University of Connecticut - Storrs 1 130, , , Public University of Georgia 1 349, , , Public University of Kentucky 1 373, , , Private University of Miami 1 248, , , Public University of New Mexico - Albuquerque 1 201, , , Public University of Oklahoma - Norman 1 78, , , Public University of Oregon 1 75, , , Public University of Tennessee - Knoxville 1 194, , , Private Yeshiva University 1 193, , ,027, The Center for Measurg University Performance

University Your selection: 169 universities

University Your selection: 169 universities University Your selection: 169 universities Level of study: bachelor, master Regions: United States, compareuni T eaching & Learning Research Knowledge T ransf er International Orientation Regional Engagement

More information

Psychology NRC Study R Rankings (1 of 6)

Psychology NRC Study R Rankings (1 of 6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Princeton U. Harvard U. Stanford U. U. of Michigan at Ann Arbor Yale U. U. of Wisconsin at Madison U. of Rochester U. of California at Los Angeles Columbia U. Brown U. U. of Chicago U.

More information

Psychology NRC Study S Rankings (1 of 6)

Psychology NRC Study S Rankings (1 of 6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Princeton U. Harvard U. Stanford U. U. of Wisconsin at Madison Yale U. U. of Rochester U. of Michigan at Ann Arbor San Diego State U. and U. of California at San Diego Columbia U. U. of California

More information

Universities classified as "very high research activity"

Universities classified as very high research activity Universities classified as "very high research activity" 108 institutions classified as "RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity)" in the 2010 Carnegie Classification of Institutions

More information

Tuition and Fees. & Room and Board. Costs 2011-12

Tuition and Fees. & Room and Board. Costs 2011-12 National and Regional Comparisons of Tuition and Fees & Room and Board Costs 2011-12 Table of Contents Table of Contents... 1 Comparator Institutions... 3 University of Wyoming Comparator Institutions...

More information

NIH 2009* Total $ Awarded. NIH 2009 Rank

NIH 2009* Total $ Awarded. NIH 2009 Rank Organization Name (Schools of Nursing) 2009* Total $ Awarded 2009 2008 Total $ Awarded 2008 2007 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA $10,908,657 1 $7,721,221 2 4 5 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO $8,780,469

More information

BenefitsMonitor National Higher Education Participants. Mercer Health & Benefits 20

BenefitsMonitor National Higher Education Participants. Mercer Health & Benefits 20 BenefitsMonitor National Higher Education Participants Arizona State University Austin Peay State University Bates College Baylor College of Medicine Baylor University Boston University Bowling Green State

More information

Summary of Doctoral Degree Programs in Philosophy

Summary of Doctoral Degree Programs in Philosophy Summary of Doctoral Degree Programs in Philosophy, Opportunities, and Program Completion All data collected by the American Philosophical Association. The data in this publication have been provided by

More information

April 4, 2014 Howard Hughes Medical Institute Page 1 of 7 2015 General Investigator Competition List of Eligible Institutions

April 4, 2014 Howard Hughes Medical Institute Page 1 of 7 2015 General Investigator Competition List of Eligible Institutions April 4, 2014 Howard Hughes Medical Institute Page 1 of 7 Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center - New York Albany Medical College - New York Albert Einstein College of Medicine - New York Arizona State University

More information

Summary of Doctoral Degree Programs in Philosophy

Summary of Doctoral Degree Programs in Philosophy Summary of Doctoral Degree Programs in Philosophy Faculty and Student Demographics All data collected by the ican Philosophical Association. The data in this publication have been provided by the departments

More information

Medical School Math Requirements and Recommendations

Medical School Math Requirements and Recommendations Medical School Math Requirements and Recommendations All information in this document comes from the 2010-2011 Medical School Admission Requirements book (commonly known as the MSAR). Students should check

More information

Association of American Medical College-Affiliated, Liaison Committee on Medical Education-

Association of American Medical College-Affiliated, Liaison Committee on Medical Education- Supplemental Digital Appendix 1 Association of American Medical College-Affiliated, Liaison Committee on Medical Education- Accredited U.S. Medical Schools Included in an Assessment of Clerkship Grading

More information

Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center - New York Albany Medical College - New York Albert Einstein College of Medicine - New York Arizona State University - Arizona Baylor College of Medicine - Texas Beth

More information

Medical School Math Requirements and Recommendations

Medical School Math Requirements and Recommendations Medical School Math Requirements and Recommendations All information in this document comes from the 2011-2012 Medical School Admission Requirements book (commonly known as the MSAR). Students should check

More information

Institutions Ineligible for AREA Grants April 2013 - March 2014

Institutions Ineligible for AREA Grants April 2013 - March 2014 Institutions Ineligible for AREA Grants April 2013 - March 2014 Please visit the AREA Program Ineligible Institutions website for more information about institutional eligibility. INSTITUTION COMPONENT

More information

2010 NRC R and S Rankings of UC Santa Cruz Research-Doctorate Programs

2010 NRC R and S Rankings of UC Santa Cruz Research-Doctorate Programs 2010 NRC R and S Rankings of UC Santa Cruz Research-Doctorate Programs UCSC Program NRC Field Charts Anthropology Anthropology R Chart S Chart Astronomy & Astrophysics Astrophysics & Astronomy R Chart

More information

SCHOOL SCHOOL S WEB ADDRESS. HOURS Tempe Arizona Ph.D. 4-5 54-84 January 15 $60 Not given 550/213

SCHOOL SCHOOL S WEB ADDRESS. HOURS Tempe Arizona Ph.D. 4-5 54-84 January 15 $60 Not given 550/213 SCHOOL SCHOOL S WEB ADDRESS 1 Arizona State University http://wpcarey.asu.edu/acc/doctoral.cfm 2 Baruch College CUNY http://zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/programs/doctoral/areas-of-study/accounting 3 Bentley

More information

Combined Degrees, Early Acceptance Offered by U.S. Medical Schools

Combined Degrees, Early Acceptance Offered by U.S. Medical Schools Combined Degrees, Early Acceptance Offered by U.S. Medical Schools Program Early/Conditional Early/Cond Acceptance (37.4% ǂ ) 49 Baccalaureate/M.D. Bacc./M.D. (25.2%) Masters/M.D. M.S./M.D. (25.2%) 33

More information

TABLE 37. Higher education R&D expenditures at institutions with a medical school, by state, institutional control, and institution: FY 2011

TABLE 37. Higher education R&D expenditures at institutions with a medical school, by state, institutional control, and institution: FY 2011 TABLE 37. Higher education R&D at institutions with a medical school, by state, institutional Alabama U. AL, Birmingham 503,698 369,116 U. South AL 42,233 16,810 Arizona U. AZ 610,565 160,136 Arkansas

More information

Program Funded by. Funding Level for Trainees (tuition, stipend) NIGMS MSTP Training Grant Yes/No

Program Funded by. Funding Level for Trainees (tuition, stipend) NIGMS MSTP Training Grant Yes/No Fundg Traees Trag Internal Accepted from: MD PhD if Albert Este College 106 12 14 0 2 0 2 Baylor College 90 10 1 2 Boston University School 62 6 0 1 0 2 Case Western Reserve University School 100 12 15

More information

A STUDY PUBLISHED in 1966 revealed a

A STUDY PUBLISHED in 1966 revealed a ROBERT B. DOWNS Doctoral Degrees and Library Resources This paper brings up to date a similar report which was published in College & Research Libraries in 1966 showing the relationship between library

More information

Visit the AREA Program Ineligible Institutions website for more information about institutional eligibility

Visit the AREA Program Ineligible Institutions website for more information about institutional eligibility Institutions Ineligible for AREA Grants April 2015 March 2016 Visit the AREA Program Ineligible Institutions website for more information about institutional eligibility Organization Name City State School

More information

The following institutions have been identified as offering reciprocal rotations for UC students and will receive reduced fee of $300.

The following institutions have been identified as offering reciprocal rotations for UC students and will receive reduced fee of $300. The following institutions have been identified as offering reciprocal rotations for UC students and will receive reduced fee of $300. No Tuition Due State School Degree Alabama University of Alabama School

More information

Institutions Ineligible for AREA Grants April 2014 March 2015

Institutions Ineligible for AREA Grants April 2014 March 2015 Institutions Ineligible for AREA Grants April 2014 March 2015 Visit the AREA Program Ineligible Institutions website for more information about institutional eligibility Organization City State School

More information

Institutions Ineligible for AREA Grants April 2016 March 2017

Institutions Ineligible for AREA Grants April 2016 March 2017 Institutions Ineligible for AREA Grants April 2016 March 2017 See AREA Program Ineligible Institutions website and Part 2, Section III of the Funding Opportunity Announcement for more information about

More information

Courses -Alabama- University of Alabama 2 Must be met with English courses University of South Alabama

Courses -Alabama- University of Alabama 2 Must be met with English courses University of South Alabama Compiled Medical School English Requirements PLEASE NOTE: this information can change and it is best to check with the individual school to be certain of what the current requirements are at the current

More information

In-state Tuition & Fees at Flagship Universities by State 2014-15 Rank School State In-state Tuition & Fees Penn State University Park Pennsylvania 1

In-state Tuition & Fees at Flagship Universities by State 2014-15 Rank School State In-state Tuition & Fees Penn State University Park Pennsylvania 1 In-state Tuition & Fees at Flagship Universities by State 2014-15 Rank School State In-state Tuition & Fees Penn State University Park Pennsylvania 1 $18,464 New New Hampshire 2 Hampshire $16,552 3 Vermont

More information

NASPAA s Research Universities Report 3/4/16

NASPAA s Research Universities Report 3/4/16 NASPAA s Research Universities Report 3/4/16 Data Source: 2014-2015 NASPAA Annual Data Report N= 109 schools, 120 programs 70% of Research Universities Fall 2015 Current Enrollment 15552 students Average

More information

NAAB Accredited Program List

NAAB Accredited Program List Auburn University Alabama Architecture Bachelor's degree NAAB Tuskegee University Alabama Architecture Bachelor's degree NAAB Arizona State University Arizona Architecture Master's degree NAAB Frank Lloyd

More information

National Bureau for Academic Accreditation And Education Quality Assurance LINGUISTICS # UNIVERSITY CITY STATE DEGREE MAJOR SPECIALTY RESTRICTION

National Bureau for Academic Accreditation And Education Quality Assurance LINGUISTICS # UNIVERSITY CITY STATE DEGREE MAJOR SPECIALTY RESTRICTION 1 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS - BOSTON ~ BOSTON MA M 1 ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY - TEMPE TEMPE AZ MD ~ M for Linguistics is for Residential Program ONLY. The online option is not ~ M in Linguistics is for

More information

By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D.

By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D. Engineering by the Numbers By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D. Bachelor s Degrees and Enrollment Degrees awarded to students graduating with a bachelor s degree from an engineering program increased by 7.5 percent

More information

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20515. Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Leahy, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers:

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20515. Dear Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Leahy, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: The Honorable Chuck Grassley The Honorable Bob Goodlatte Chairman Chairman United States Senate U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Patrick Leahy The Honorable

More information

Cultivating Organic Farmers

Cultivating Organic Farmers Cultivating Organic Farmers BACKGROUND Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) is the only national, non-profit organization to track and report organic programs and activity in the U.S. land grant

More information

Enhancing Educational Attainment in Arizona

Enhancing Educational Attainment in Arizona Enhancing Educational Attainment in Arizona Status Report on the 2002 Changing Directions Policy of the Arizona Board of Regents at Arizona State University February 2006 Chance for College in the U.S.

More information

The Top American Research Universities

The Top American Research Universities The Top American Research Universities 2012 Annual Report The Center for Measurg University Performance John V. Lombardi Elizabeth D. Phillips Craig W. Abbey Diane D. Craig ISBN 978-0-9856170-2-8 Copyright

More information

Davis Graduat Psychologyy

Davis Graduat Psychologyy A Data Based Assessment of Resear rch Doctorate Programs in the United States National Research Council Initial Analysis for University of California, Davis Graduat te Program in Psychologyy Table of Contents

More information

Universities classified as "high research activity"

Universities classified as high research activity Universities classified as "high research activity" 99 institutions classified as "RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity)" in the 2010 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.

More information

ARCHITECTURE TOP 20 PROGRAMS 2014

ARCHITECTURE TOP 20 PROGRAMS 2014 TOP 0 PROGRAMS 0 In your firm s hiring experience in the past five years, which schools are best preparing students for success in the profession? UNDER. Cornell University. Rice University. University

More information

College Acceptances The University of Akron The University of Alabama Albion College Allegheny College American University Anderson University-IN

College Acceptances The University of Akron The University of Alabama Albion College Allegheny College American University Anderson University-IN College Acceptances The University of Akron The University of Alabama Albion College Allegheny College American University Anderson University-IN Arizona State University The University of Arizona Art

More information

A Guide to Graduate Study in Economics: Ranking Economics Departments by Fields of Expertise

A Guide to Graduate Study in Economics: Ranking Economics Departments by Fields of Expertise Southern Economic Journal 2008, 74(4), 971 996 A Guide to Graduate Study in Economics: Ranking Economics Departments by Fields of Expertise Therese C. Grijalva* and Clifford Nowell{ Ph.D. programs in economics

More information

By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D.

By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D. Engineering by the Numbers By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D. Bachelor s Degrees and Enrollment Engineering bachelor s degrees grew by 6 percent during the past year, reaching a total of 99,173 for 214. This continues

More information

Robert Crown Law Library Legal Research Paper Series

Robert Crown Law Library Legal Research Paper Series Ranking of Top Law Schools 2012-2014 By US News & World Report ( USN&WR ) [2012, 2013 & 2014 Editions] Compiled by George D. Wilson Robert Crown Law Library Research Paper No. 31 April 2013 Robert Crown

More information

SCHEDULE. Medical College of Alabama, Birmingham. University of Arkansas School, Little Rock. Loma Linda University School, Loma Linda.

SCHEDULE. Medical College of Alabama, Birmingham. University of Arkansas School, Little Rock. Loma Linda University School, Loma Linda. MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ORDINANCE () Applied to Ascension by Chapter 5 of the 1950 Revised Edition of the Laws MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (ASCENSION) REGULATIONS In exercise of the powers conferred upon the Governor

More information

DISCUSSION ITEM ANNUAL REPORT ON NEWLY APPROVED INDIRECT COSTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTS FROM RESEARCH BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION ITEM ANNUAL REPORT ON NEWLY APPROVED INDIRECT COSTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTS FROM RESEARCH BACKGROUND F2 Office of the President TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE: For Meeting of November 17, 2010 DISCUSSION ITEM ANNUAL REPORT ON NEWLY APPROVED INDIRECT COSTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE RECOVERY OF INDIRECT

More information

Health Disciplines SCHOOLS RANKED BEST BY PROGRAM DIRECTORS AND FACULTY

Health Disciplines SCHOOLS RANKED BEST BY PROGRAM DIRECTORS AND FACULTY Health Disciplines SCHOOLS RANKED BEST BY PROGRAM DIRECTORS AND FACULTY AUDIOLOGY 1. Vanderbilt University (TN) 4.3 2. University of Iowa 4.2 3. University of Washington 4.0 4. Northwestern University

More information

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL 5:00 P.M. ET, MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2010

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL 5:00 P.M. ET, MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2010 EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL 5:00 P.M. ET, Appendix Table 1. Community-Based Medical Schools* Medical School of North Dakota of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine Michigan State of Hawai'i John A.

More information

in the Rankings U.S. News & World Report

in the Rankings U.S. News & World Report in the Rankings UCLA performs very well in all the national and international rankings of the best public and private universities, including the most widely known list published by U.S. News & World Report.

More information

UC AND THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL RATINGS OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS

UC AND THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL RATINGS OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS UC AND THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL RATINGS OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS In the Fall of 1995, the University of California was the subject of some stunning news when the National Research Council (NRC) announced

More information

Current U.S. News and World Report Rankings Public and Private *

Current U.S. News and World Report Rankings Public and Private * Undergraduate programs 2016 Engineering Engineering: 41 of 184 ahead of Dartmouth Michigan State of Business: 29 of 478 ahead of 2016 Business and specialty programs Brigham Young Management: 15 of 26

More information

Graduate School Rankings Debate: U.S. News and World Report --and beyond

Graduate School Rankings Debate: U.S. News and World Report --and beyond Graduate School Rankings Debate: U.S. News and World Report --and beyond Every year, U.S. News and World Report publishes a ranking of different graduate programs and, every year, college and university

More information

US News & World Report Graduate Program Comparison 1994 2015 Year ranking was published

US News & World Report Graduate Program Comparison 1994 2015 Year ranking was published US News & World Report Graduate Program Comparison Year was published Select Findings from US News and World Report - Engineering Schools MIT Engineering Year that was released Rank 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

More information

New Charter University (previously known as Andrew Jackson University) University of Arkansas Little Rock

New Charter University (previously known as Andrew Jackson University) University of Arkansas Little Rock ALABAMA University of North Alabama University of Alabama Tuscaloosa University of Alabama Birmingham New Charter University (previously known as Andrew Jackson University) Troy University ARIZONA Arizona

More information

A Data Based Assessment of Research Doctorate Programs in the United States

A Data Based Assessment of Research Doctorate Programs in the United States A Data Based Assessment of Resear rch Doctorate Programs in the United States National Research Council Initial Analysis for University of California, Davis Graduat te Program in Civil and Environmental

More information

Public Health and Law Schools Reported by Survey Respondents

Public Health and Law Schools Reported by Survey Respondents Public Health and Law Schools Reported by Survey Respondents The following is a list of the public health and law schools attended by survey respondents. Schools have been divided into three, mutually

More information

in the Rankings U.S. News & World Report

in the Rankings U.S. News & World Report UCLA performs very well in all the national and international rankings of the best public and private universities, including the most widely known list published by U.S. News & World Report. Following

More information

Public School Teacher Experience Distribution. Public School Teacher Experience Distribution

Public School Teacher Experience Distribution. Public School Teacher Experience Distribution Public School Teacher Experience Distribution Lower Quartile Median Upper Quartile Mode Alabama Percent of Teachers FY Public School Teacher Experience Distribution Lower Quartile Median Upper Quartile

More information

Q2 Which university will you be attending? American University (366) Arizona State University (367) Boston University (368) Brown University (439)

Q2 Which university will you be attending? American University (366) Arizona State University (367) Boston University (368) Brown University (439) Decline Offer Survey Thank you for considering the University of Washington during your search for a graduate degree program. We understand that many factors influence each applicant s decision in selecting

More information

NAAB-Accredited Architecture Programs in the United States

NAAB-Accredited Architecture Programs in the United States NAAB-Accredited Architecture Programs in the United States ALABAMA Auburn University College of Architecture, Design & Construction Auburn University, AL www.cadc.auburn.edu/soa/ Tuskegee University College

More information

State Name of Medical School Math Calc Stats University of Alabama AL School of Medicine 2 sems. AL University of South Alabama College of

State Name of Medical School Math Calc Stats University of Alabama AL School of Medicine 2 sems. AL University of South Alabama College of State Name of Medical School Math Calc Stats of Alabama AL School of AL of South Alabama College of of Arkansas AR College of of Arizona AZ College of of Arizona College of AZ Phoenix Keck School of of

More information

in the Rankings U.S. News & World Report

in the Rankings U.S. News & World Report in the Rankings UCLA performs very well in all the national and international rankings of the best public and private universities, including the most widely known list published by U.S. News & World Report.

More information

INDEX OF SCHOOLS BY NAME

INDEX OF SCHOOLS BY NAME INDEX OF SCHOOLS BY NAME A Agnes Scott College 60 Allegheny College 62 Amherst College 64 Arizona State University at the Tempe campus 66 B Babson College 68 Barnard College 70 Baruch College, City University

More information

July 2013 Pennsylvania Bar Examination

July 2013 Pennsylvania Bar Examination July 0 Pennsylvania Bar Examination Examination Statistics 0 Commonwealth Ave., Suite 00 P.O. Box Harrisburg, PA 0- () -0 http://www.pabarexam.org Statistics for the July 0 Examination Overall Data Total

More information

Decline Admission to Boston College Law School - Fall 2016

Decline Admission to Boston College Law School - Fall 2016 Decline Admission to Boston College Law School - Fall 2016 We are sorry to hear that you will not be attending Boston College Law School. Please complete and submit this form to formally decline your admission

More information

2004 KICKOFF WEEKEND COLLEGES - ALPHABETICALLY

2004 KICKOFF WEEKEND COLLEGES - ALPHABETICALLY Abilene Christian 1 Air Force 1 Akron 3 Ala.-Birmingham 4 Alabama 20 Alabama A&M 1 Alcorn State 4 Appalachian State 2 Arizona 14 Arizona State 23 Arkansas 13 Arkansas State 5 Arkansas-Monticello 1 Arkansas-Pine

More information

What Is College and Career Readiness? State Requirements for High School Graduation and State Public University Admissions

What Is College and Career Readiness? State Requirements for High School Graduation and State Public University Admissions What Is College and Career Readiness? State Requirements for High School Graduation and State Public University Admissions Peter A. Conforti Each high school student in the United States must meet the

More information

Three-Year Moving Averages by States % Home Internet Access

Three-Year Moving Averages by States % Home Internet Access Three-Year Moving Averages by States % Home Internet Access Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana

More information

Freshmen Acceptance Rate AAU Public Universities

Freshmen Acceptance Rate AAU Public Universities Freshmen University of California, Berkeley 27% University of California, Los Angeles 27% University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 37% University of Virginia 38% University of California, San Diego 44%

More information

The Top American Research Universities

The Top American Research Universities The Top American Research Universities 2014 Annual Report The Center for Measurg University Performance John V. Lombardi Elizabeth D. Capaldi Phillips Craig W. Abbey Diane D. Craig ISBN 978-0-9856170-4-2

More information

2010 Top 100 Colleges in the United States

2010 Top 100 Colleges in the United States Ads by Google Colleges Best MBA Colleges Top US College University Ranking Top 10 Universities Colleges & Universities Ranking in the United States & World Search HOME ABOUT UNITED STATES UNIVERSITIES

More information

U.S. News & World Report

U.S. News & World Report IN THE RANKINGS UCLA performs very well in all the national and international rankings of the best public and private universities, including the most widely known list published by U.S. News & World Report.

More information

By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D.

By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D. Engineering by the Numbers By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D. Bachelor s Degrees and Enrollment Engineering bachelor s degrees rose by 6 percent in 212, reaching 88,176. Growth in degrees is expected to continue

More information

UCLA in the Rankings. U.S. News & World Report

UCLA in the Rankings. U.S. News & World Report UCLA performs very well in all the national and international rankings of the best public and private universities, including the most widely known list published by U.S. News & World Report. Following

More information

Graduate School Rankings By U.S. News & World Report: ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING

Graduate School Rankings By U.S. News & World Report: ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING Rank Universities Score 2 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 4.7 3 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 4.4 4 University of Texas, Austin 4.2 5 Purdue University, West Lafayette 4.1 6 University of

More information

Demographic Trends of Engineering Students

Demographic Trends of Engineering Students Engineering by the Numbers By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D. Bachelor s Degrees and Enrollment Engineering bachelor s degrees grew by 5.6 percent during 211, reaching 83,1. Almost all fields grew in the number

More information

Graduate School Rankings By U.S. News & World Report: MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Graduate School Rankings By U.S. News & World Report: MECHANICAL ENGINEERING Rank Universities Score 1 University of California, Berkeley 4.8 4 Purdue University, West Lafayette 4.2 6 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 3.9 7 Penn State University, University Park 3.8 7 Texas

More information

University of Arizona College of Medicine 1062. University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix 1018

University of Arizona College of Medicine 1062. University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix 1018 State Program Table Number Alabama University of Alabama School of Medicine University of South Alabama College of Medicine Arizona University of Arizona College of Medicine 1062 University of Arizona

More information

Graduate School Rankings By U.S. News & World Report: ENGINEERING SCHOOLS

Graduate School Rankings By U.S. News & World Report: ENGINEERING SCHOOLS Rank Universities 1 University of California, Berkeley 2 Georgia Institute of Technology 3 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 4 University of Texas, Austin 5 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 6 Purdue

More information

22-Nov Duke -4.5 over Minnesota 89-71 Win 4 $400 22-Nov Oklahoma -3 over UTEP 68-61 Win 3 $300 7 $700 12 $940

22-Nov Duke -4.5 over Minnesota 89-71 Win 4 $400 22-Nov Oklahoma -3 over UTEP 68-61 Win 3 $300 7 $700 12 $940 2012-2013 Doc's Sports College Basketball Complete Season Record By Game Daily Season To Date Date Game / pick Score W / L Units $$$ Units $$$ Units $$$ 17-Nov Milwaukee +6 over Davidson 73-68 Win 4 $400

More information

Law Review Submissions Guide 2014-15. Submission Tips & Law Review Rankings

Law Review Submissions Guide 2014-15. Submission Tips & Law Review Rankings Law Review Submissions Guide 2014-15 Submission Tips & Law Review Rankings Law Review Submissions Guide 2014-15 Submission Tips & Law Review Rankings 3 5 7 11 The Online Shift: Trends in Law Scholarship

More information

Impacts of Sequestration on the States

Impacts of Sequestration on the States Impacts of Sequestration on the States Alabama Alabama will lose about $230,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law STOP Violence Against Women Program: Alabama could lose up to $102,000 in funds

More information

NUMBERS. Engineering degrees increased at all levels THE YEAR IN BY MICHAEL T. GIBBONS

NUMBERS. Engineering degrees increased at all levels THE YEAR IN BY MICHAEL T. GIBBONS THE YEAR IN NUMBERS BY MICHAEL T. GIBBONS Engineering degrees increased at all levels during the 24-5 academic year. This trend has continued at the bachelor s and master s levels since 1999. Doctoral

More information

Survivors Teaching Students: Saving Women s Lives SM An Ovarian Cancer Education Program for Medical Students

Survivors Teaching Students: Saving Women s Lives SM An Ovarian Cancer Education Program for Medical Students Survivors Teaching Students: Saving Women s Lives SM An Ovarian Cancer Education Program for Medical Students Medical Schools Participating throughout the United States 2010 The program is implemented

More information

ISSN 0361-5669 Annual Salary Survey 1988 ARL

ISSN 0361-5669 Annual Salary Survey 1988 ARL ISSN 0361-5669 Annual Salary Survey 1988 ARL ARL Annual Salary Survey 1988 Compiled by Gordon Fretwell for the Association of Research Libraries Association of Research Libraries 1527 New Hampshire Avenue,

More information

United States Colleges with Department of Defense Contracts

United States Colleges with Department of Defense Contracts Suite 301, 20 Harewood Avenue, London, NW1 6JX Tel: +44 (0) 207 258 3750 - Email: info@globalcrisis.org.uk - www.globalcrisis.org.uk United States Colleges with Department of Defense Contracts Intelligent-Future

More information

2012 Entering Medical Class: Allopathic Medical Schools (48) to which 142 Penn State applicants matriculated Albert Einstein College of Medicine

2012 Entering Medical Class: Allopathic Medical Schools (48) to which 142 Penn State applicants matriculated Albert Einstein College of Medicine 2012 Entering Medical Class: Allopathic Medical Schools (48) to which 142 Penn State applicants matriculated Albert Einstein College of Medicine The University of Vermont Baylor University Tufts University

More information

Catholic High School College Acceptance List

Catholic High School College Acceptance List Catholic High School College Acceptance List A B C D American Musical and Dramatic Academy American University Arizona State University Auburn University Ave Maria University Baton Rouge Community College

More information

SCHOOL TAKING EXAM PASS FAIL ADLER SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 1 0 1 ALFRED UNIVERSITY 1 1 0 ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY ALHAMBRA 135 124

SCHOOL TAKING EXAM PASS FAIL ADLER SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 1 0 1 ALFRED UNIVERSITY 1 1 0 ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY ALHAMBRA 135 124 SCHOOL TAKING EXAM PASS FAIL ADLER SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 1 0 1 ALFRED UNIVERSITY 1 1 0 ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY ALHAMBRA 135 124 11 ALLIANT UNIVERSITY, FRESNO 25 24 1 ALLIANT UNIVERSITY,

More information

Appendix 1: CEPH accredited Institutions

Appendix 1: CEPH accredited Institutions Appendix 1: CEPH accredited Institutions Institution Department/Division CEPH or Johns Hopkins Bloomberg of Public Health International Health Health Behaviour and Society Population Family and Reproductive

More information

Visiting Student Application Service (VSAS) Information for Students

Visiting Student Application Service (VSAS) Information for Students Visiting Student Application Service (VSAS) Information for Students What is VSAS? The Visiting Student Application Service (VSAS) is an Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) application for

More information

Compare Your Stats Pharmacy

Compare Your Stats Pharmacy THE PREMIER SOURCE FOR FUTURE DR. S *Data provided by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy **Data based on matriculated students at respective schools entering fall 2010 Compare Your Stats

More information

2010 Allocations to States of Volume Cap for Qualified School Construction Bonds

2010 Allocations to States of Volume Cap for Qualified School Construction Bonds 2010 Allocations to States of Volume Cap for Qualified School Construction Bonds Total Dollar Allocation by State/ State/Territory Territory Alabama 140,453,000 Alaska 28,163,000 Arizona 171,115,000 Arkansas

More information

Graduate School Rankings By U.S. News & World Report: PSYCHOLOGY (RESEARCH) - Ph.D.

Graduate School Rankings By U.S. News & World Report: PSYCHOLOGY (RESEARCH) - Ph.D. PSYCHOLOGY (RESEARCH) - Ph.D. Assessment 1 University of California, Berkeley 4.6 1 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 4.6 3 University of California, Los Angeles 4.4 3 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

More information

U.S. News & World Report 2015 Best Colleges Rankings Summary Report

U.S. News & World Report 2015 Best Colleges Rankings Summary Report U.S. News & World Report 2015 Best Colleges ings Summary Report U.S. News World Report releases the Best Colleges ings each fall. These undergraduate rankings are used by students to help them decide where

More information

Non-NAAB Accredited Program List

Non-NAAB Accredited Program List Non-NAAB Accredited List Alabama A & M University Alabama City/Urban, Community and Regional Planning Bachelor's degree Non-NAAB Alabama A & M University Alabama City/Urban, Community and Regional Planning

More information

Fiske Guide to Getting into the Right College Pre-professional Lists II. Private Universities Strong in Business

Fiske Guide to Getting into the Right College Pre-professional Lists II. Private Universities Strong in Business Fiske Guide to Getting into the Right College Pre-professional Lists II Private Universities Strong in Business American University Boston College Boston University Carnegie Mellon University Case Western

More information

Doctoral Programs in Communication: Updated Report for 2010-2011 Graduates

Doctoral Programs in Communication: Updated Report for 2010-2011 Graduates Doctoral Programs in Communication: Updated Report for 2010-2011 Graduates A Supplemental Report Annual Surveys of Journalism & Mass Communication Lee B. Becker Tudor Vlad Holly Simpson Konrad Kalpen James

More information

NRC - A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States 2010 R Rankings

NRC - A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States 2010 R Rankings NRC - A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States 0 R Rankings (5th Percentile of Regression Rankings) REV 5/2/ A result of data collected from 5,004 doctoral programs at

More information