America's Fastest-Dying Cities: Implications for Higher Education

College Search & Selection
61

<p>bc,
I'm going to chew on your numbers for a bit, but thanks for taking the time to make a reasoned and well-researched response. (dstark: take notice!)</p>

<p>I agree that the USNWR Financial Resources is an important measurement. Here is what it measures:</p>

<p>"Financial resources are measured by the average spending per full-time-equivalent student on instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, and operations and maintenance (for public institutions only) during the 2005 and 2006 fiscal years. The number of full-time-equivalent students is equal to the number of full-time students plus one third of the number of part-time students. (Note: This includes both undergraduate and graduate students.) We first scaled the public service and research values by the percentage of full-time-equivalent undergraduate students attending the school. Next, we added in total instruction, academic support, student services, institutional support, and operations and maintenance (for public institutions only) and then divided by the number of full-time-equivalent students. After calculating this value, we applied a logarithmic transformation to the spending per full-time-equivalent student, prior to standardizing the value. This calculation process was done for all schools."</p>

<p>Here is a more full listing of national universities (private and public) and how they compare nationally:</p>

<p>FinancialResources Rank , School (USN Rank)</p>

<p>1 , Caltech (5)
2 , Yale (3)
3 , Johns Hopkins (14)
4 , MIT (7)
4 , Wash U (12)
6 , Wake Forest (30)
7 , U Chicago (9)
8 , Harvard (2)
8 , U Penn (5)
10 , Stanford (4)
11 , Dartmouth (11)
12 , Princeton (1)
12 , Northwestern (14)
14 , Duke (8)
15 , Vanderbilt (19)
16 , Columbia (9)
17 , Cornell (12)
17 , Emory (17)
19 , U Rochester (35)
20 , Case Western (41)
20 , Yeshiva (52)
22 , Carnegie Mellon (22)
24 , Brown (14)
24 , Rice (17)
26 , UCLA (25)
28 , UCSD (38)
29 , U Michigan (25)
29 , U Washington (42)
31 , U North Carolina (28)
31 , UC Davis (42)
31 , U Miami (52)
35 , Georgetown (23)
35 , Tufts (28)
37 , U Pittsburgh (59)
38 , Notre Dame (19)
38 , NYU (34)
40 , UC Berkeley (21)
40 , USC (27)
40 , Rensselaer (44)
40 , U Florida (49)
40 , U Minnesota (71)
46 , Georgia Tech (35)
47 , Lehigh (31)
47 , Brandeis (31)
47 , U Wisconsin (38)
47 , Tulane (50)
47 , Howard (96)
53 , UC Irvine (44)
53 , Boston University (57)
53 , U Tennessee (96)
53 , Drexel (108)
57 , U Virginia (23)
57 , Pepperdine (54)
59 , U Illinois (38)
59 , Penn State (48)
59 , Rutgers (59)
59 , U Iowa (64)
59 , U Vermont (96)
59 , U of the Pacific (96)
59 , U Kentucky (122)
69 , Boston Coll (35)
69 , George Washington (54)
69 , Ohio State (57)
72 , Worcester (62)
72 , Stevens Institute (75)
72 , SUNY-Envi Sci/For (85)
76 , U Connecticut (64)
76 , SUNY-Stony Brook (96)
80 , Texas A&M (62)
80 , SMU (67)
80 , NC State (85)
80 , U Tulsa (91)
80 , U Arizona (96)
86 , U Maryland (54)
86 , U Delaware (71)
86 , St. Louis Univ (82)
86 , U Kansas (85)
86 , Illinois Tech (96)
86 , Catholic U (122)
92 , Michigan State (71)
92 , NJ Tech (124)
96 , Syracuse (50)
96 , U Texas (44)
96 , UC Santa Barbara (44)
96 , Purdue (64)
96 , Clemson (67)
96 , American U (85)
96 , Northeastern (96)
96 , U San Diego (107)
96 , U Oklahoma (108)</p>

<p>BTW, the salary data in the USNWR Faculty Resources ranking is adjusted by region. And Illinois Tech is short-hand for Illinois Institute of Technology which is # 96 in USNWR national universities ranking.</p>

62

<p>^ Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) is a private institution in Chicago. I lived in Chicago for a long time and never heard anyone call it "Illinois Tech," only "IIT." As a private institution it doesn't belong in your list of Midwestern public universities.</p>

63

<p>I'm not sure what impact research spending has in the calculation of Financial Resources rank, but I'm guessing that it is substantial. UCLA and U Wisconsin, known heavyweights in getting research contracts from the federal government, rank first and second among public universities in this measurement. If the research component truly is a large part of this measurement, it is actually a surprise to me that so many of the southern publics did so well. </p>

<p>Here are how the top 10 colleges in each region compared and how they averaged as a group:</p>

<p>Financial Resources Rank , MIDWEST</p>

<p>27 , U Wisconsin
29 , U Michigan
40 , U Minnesota
59 , U Illinois
59 , U Iowa
69 , Ohio State
92 , Michigan State
96 , Purdue
106 , Iowa State
114 , U Missouri</p>

<p>69.1 , Top 10 Average Rank</p>

<p>Financial Resources Rank , SOUTH</p>

<p>31 , U North Carolina
40 , U Florida
46 , Georgia Tech
53 , U Tennessee
57 , U Virginia
80 , Texas A&M
80 , NC State
96 , U Texas
96 , Clemson
106 , W&M</p>

<p>68.5 , Top 10 Average Rank</p>

<p>Financial Resources Rank , WEST</p>

<p>26 , UCLA
28 , UCSD
29 , U Washington
31 , UC Davis
40 , UC Berkeley
53 , UCI
80 , U Arizona
96 , UCSB
106 , Colorado Sch of Mines
106 , UCSC</p>

<p>59.5 , Top 10 Average Rank</p>

<p>On IIT, my mistake. I had it on my personal spreadsheet mixed in with the publics. Thanks for the correction.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
I agree that the USNWR Financial Resources is an important measurement. Here is what it measures:

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The more I delve into what USNWR says it measures, the more I am appalled at how poorly specified their system is.</p>

<p>First of all, my understanding is that the following occurs when data is particularly skewed and you make all sorts of assumptions beforehand for how the data should look:</p>

<p>
[quote]
After calculating this value, we applied a logarithmic transformation to the spending per full-time-equivalent student, prior to standardizing the value. This calculation process was done for all schools."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nextly, I can't imagine why if you are going to use a measure like this you are going to specify that endowment figures or endowment per student should be used. What this table shows me is that a school that has a $35b+ endowment rates right alongside a school that has a $6b endowment and several clicks below schools that have endowments of about 5% Harvard's size in terms of resources spent on students. </p>

<p>What I then conclude is not necessarily that those schools are particularly generous nor that Harvard is terribly penurious, but instead that there is almost no rhyme or reason to how this statistic is constructed.</p>

<p>Take the positions of UCLA, UCSD, and UC Davis. I get that because they have larger student bodies they aren't going to be at the tip top like a small place like Cal Tech. After all, this is all set in per capita terms.</p>

<p>What I don't get is why you'd have these three schools which have medical schools lumped right together with other schools that don't have med schools or even others still that don't really have noted graduate schools.</p>

<p>When financial analysts dissect the financial performance of companies, they don't assess the performance of companies that do really different things to comprise competitive comparisons. </p>

<p>These numbers have no credibility to me, given that they span such different kinds of institutions without regard to that fact.</p>

<p>Also, it looks like just about any category of expenditure can be classified as something spent on students. In particular, because they can be, private schools are generally much more cagey about what is measured how than are public schools. I am near absolute certain that if I took the time to bother, I could find that Stanford counts as an expenditure for students something that UCLA for instance would not put in that category.</p>

65

<p>^^ Re: post #63</p>

<p>Several corrections here. Michigan (#29) is tops in the Midwest, not Wisconsin (#47) which you erroneously reported at #27. Also, you left U Kansas (#86) out of the Midwest top 10. Corrected:</p>

<p>MIDWEST:</p>

<ol>
<li>U Michigan 29</li>
<li>U Minnesota 40</li>
<li>U Wisconsin 47</li>
<li>UIUC 59</li>
<li>U Iowa 59</li>
<li>Ohio State 69</li>
<li>U Kansas 86</li>
<li>Michigan State 92</li>
<li>Purdue 96</li>
<li>Iowa State 106</li>
</ol>

<p>Mean: 68.3</p>

<p>Also, how about a little love for the Northeast?</p>

<p>NORTHEAST</p>

<ol>
<li>Pitt 37</li>
<li>(tie) Penn State 59</li>
<li>(tie) Rutgers 59
2 (tie). Vermont 59</li>
<li>SUNY Coll of Envtl Sci 72</li>
<li>(tie) UConn 76</li>
<li>(tie) SUNY Stony Brook 76</li>
<li>(tie) U Delaware 86</li>
<li>(tie) U Maryland 86</li>
<li>U Mass Amherst 106</li>
</ol>

<p>Mean: 71.6</p>

66

<p>Now here's another way to look at this financial resources data (taking it all with a big grain of salt, given the caveats issued by UCBChemE and BesCraze).</p>

<p>Let's just suppose "financial resources" does give us at least a rough proxy for financial strength. And let's suppose further that one goal for each of these schools it to maximize its US News ranking (a dubious goal, I know, but in fact many schools ARE influenced by US News far more than they'll ever admit publicly). Then the question becomes, which schools are getting the most out of their financial advantage by actually earning higher US News rankings? And which are least efficient at translating their financial strength into improved rankings? Some answers may surprise you.</p>

<p>UNDERPERFORMERS:</p>

<p>Financial Resources rank /School/(US News Rank)/ Underperformance</p>

<p>59, U Kentucky (122) -63
53, Drexel (108) -55
47, Howard (96) -49
53, U Tennessee (96) -43
59, U Vermont (96) -37
59, U of the Pacific (96) -37
86, Catholic U (122) -36
20, Yeshiva (52) -32
92, NJ Tech (124) -32
40, U Minnesota (71) -31
6, Wake Forest (30) -24
37, Pitt (59) -22
20, Case Western (41) -21
31, U Miami (52) -21
76, SUNY-Stony Brook (96) -20
19, U Rochester (35) -16
80, U Arizona (96) -16
29, U Washington (42) -13
72, SUNY-Env Sci/For (85) -13
96, U Oklahoma (108) -12
3, Johns Hopkins (14) -11
31, UC Davis (42) -11
80, U Tulsa (91) -11
96, U San Diego (107) -11
28, UCSD (38) -10
86, IIT (96) -10
40, U Florida (49) -9
4, Wash U (12) -8
59, U Iowa (64) -5
80, NC State (85) -5
1, Caltech (5) -4
15, Vanderbilt (19) -4
40, RPI (44) -4
53, Boston University (57) -4
4, MIT (7) -3
47, Tulane (50) -3
57, Pepperdine (54) -3
72, Stevens Institute (75) -3
7, U Chicago (9) -2
12, Northwestern (14) -2
2, Yale (3) -1</p>

<p>OVERPERFORMERS: </p>

<p>96, UC Santa Barbara (44) +52
96, U Texas (44) +52
96, Syracuse (50) +46
57, U Virginia (23) +34
69, Boston College (35) +34
86, U Maryland (54) +32
96, Purdue (64) +32
96, Clemson (67) +29
59, UIUC (38) +21
92, Michigan State (71) +21
38, Notre Dame (19) +19
40, UC Berkeley (21) +19
80, Texas A&M (62) +18
47, Lehigh (31) +16
47, Brandeis (31) +16
69, George Washington (54) +15
86, U Delaware (71) + 15
40, USC (27) +13
80, SMU (67) +13
35, Georgetown (23) +12
69, Ohio State (57) +12
76, UConn (64) +12
12, Princeton (1) +11
46, Georgia Tech (35) +11
59, Penn State (48) +11
96, American U (85) +11
24, Brown (14) +10
72, Worcester Polytechnic (62) +10
47, U Wisconsin (38) +9
53, UC Irvine (44) +9
16, Columbia (9) +7
24, Rice (17) +7
35, Tufts (28) +7
8, Harvard (2) +6
10, Stanford (4) +6
14, Duke (8) +6
17, Cornell (12) +5
29, U Michigan (25) +4
38, NYU (34) +4
86, St. Louis U (82) +4
31, UNC Chapel Hill (28) +3
8, U Penn (5) +3
26, UCLA (25) +1
86, U Kansas (85) +1</p>

<p>NO CHANGE: </p>

<p>11, Dartmouth (11) nc
17, Emory (17) nc
22, Carnegie Mellon (22) nc
59, Rutgers (59) nc
96, Northeastern (96) nc</p>

<p>Does this give us at least a crude measure of the "efficiency" of the educational effort? I think it might---again, acknowledging the many limitations of the data. </p>

<p>Just anecdotally, I'll say that I've spent significant amounts of time at 6 of the above-named institutions, and I'm pretty familiar with several others. In my experience, the Ivies I'm most familiar with (-1, +6, +7) have a lot of money, but they're generally pretty judicious in their use of it, and they generally get what they pay for. Michigan (+4) has less money than the Ivies but also spends it pretty well. On the other hand, Michigan State (+21) has a lot less money but still remains surprisingly close on Michigan's heels, stretching its limited resources much farther. UC Berkeley (+19), IMO, is amazing. I know it rankles the Berkeley fans here, but Berkeley is actually stretched pretty thin on financial resources for a major research university; but I've never been associated with a school that gets more out of the resources it has, with a truly stellar, indeed almost unparalleled cast of faculty and outstanding students, kept together on a shoestring in comparison to other schools of its stature. Wisconsin (+9) faces a constant struggle financially but it always puts out a quality product, far outshining Minnesota (-31) which is probably in better shape financially but has yet to get its act together on undergraduate education. Now these are all broad-brush characterizations, I know, but I think there's something to this, at least roughly. </p>

<p>And that invites the question, what's going on at places like Kentucky, Drexel, Howard, Tennessee, Vermont, University of the Pacific, and Catholic U that causes them to underperform so badly, given their relative financial strength in comparison to their peer schools? And on the other side of the coin, what can we learn from places like UC Santa Barbara, Texas, Syracuse, UVA, Boston College, U Maryland, Purdue, Clemson, UIUC, Michigan State, Notre Dame, and UC Berkeley about how to stretch limited financial resources to put forth a quality product at a lower cost than the competition?</p>

67

<p>Berkeley, Michigan and Wisconsin can rely to a pretty significant extent on non-financial advantages such as academic reputation, well-oiled research grant securing systems, alums who will cough up money for new buildings and other needs when necessary, and great communities for academics to live. UW's secret weapon is the WARF which has over $2 Billion and an amazing patent and licensing arm so faculty can share in income from inventions. As this is an independent arm of the UW it does not appear in data on endowments, etc. But it's reach is very real as its successful defense of the key stem cell patents over all the lawyers California could muster indicates.</p>

<p>Wisconsin</a> Alumni Research Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

68

<p>BClintonk, I have my doubts about your list. I think the key is "limitations of the data". </p>

<p>However, I'd like to think the data is fairly accurate because then it would make my point for me. </p>

<p>Which is you can't just make a list and rank schools according to USNWR's Financial Rankings and conclude that the higher the ranking in USNWR, the better the education. </p>

<p>Which is what these rankings are supposed to be about.</p>

69

<p>In response to the question posed earlier in the thread about how things may have changed over time, I found some data for the 25 national universities ranked in 1992. </p>

<p>Here are the Faculty Resource ranks in 1992 compared with 2008 and how they have changed over time:</p>

<p>1992 Faculty Resources Rank , 2008 Faculty Resources Rank , Change , College</p>

<p>BIG GAINERS<br>
18 , 1 , +17 , U Penn
32 , 18 , +14 , Brown</p>

<p>GAINERS<br>
15 , 7 , +8 , Wash U
22 , 14 , +8 , Cornell
13 , 7 , +6 , Northwestern
21 , 15 , +6 , Rice
23 , 17 , +6 , Carnegie Mellon
8 , 3 , +5 , Princeton
14 , 10 , +4 , Columbia</p>

<p>NO BIG CHANGE<br>
6 , 3 , +3 , Duke
12 , 10 , +2 , Vanderbilt
44 , 42 , +2 , UCLA
3 , 2 , +1 , Caltech</p>

<p>1 , 3 , -2 , Harvard
17 , 20 , -3 , MIT
47 , 50 , -3 , U North Carolina</p>

<p>DECLINERS<br>
5 , 9 , -4 , Yale
2 , 6 , -4 , U Chicago
10 , 15 , -5 , Dartmouth
7 , 13 , -6 , Stanford
29 , 36 , -7 , U Virginia</p>

<p>BIG DECLINERS<br>
9 , 22 , -13 , Johns Hopkins
24 , 38 , -14 , UC Berkeley
19 , 38 , -19 , Georgetown
35 , 69 , -34 , U Michigan</p>

<p>INSUFFICIENT DATA<br>
na , 10 , na , Emory
na , 21 , na , Notre Dame</p>

70

<p>I have my doubts about these faculty resource rankings.</p>

<p>Per US News, this category consists of several factors:
1) average faculty compensation (35%)
2) percent faculty with top terminal degree (15%)
3) percent fulltime faculty (5%)
4) student/faculty ratio (5%)
5) class size, less than 20 students (30%)
6) class size, 50+ students (10%)</p>

<p>Now compare UVA, which ranks #36 in "faculty resources", with Michigan which ranks #69--a difference of 33 places.</p>

<p>Faculty salaries (per AAUP):
Full professor: Michigan $137,000; Virginia $132,700
Associate professor: Michigan $89,100; Virginia $91,000
Assistant professor: Michigan $79,300; Virginia $74,500</p>

<p>Fulltime faculty: Michigan 92%, Virginia 98%</p>

<p>Student/faculty ratio: Michigan 15/1, Virginia 15/1</p>

<p>Classes w/ fewer than 20 students: Michigan 45%, Virginia 49%</p>

<p>Classes w/ 50 or more students: Michigan 17%, Virginia 15%</p>

<p>In short, these two schools are virtually identical, about as evenly matched in every reported category as any pair of schools can be. Yet Virginia outranks Michigan in "faculty resources" by 33 places? Yes, Virginia has an ever-so-slight advantage in several categories, Michigan in another important one (faculty salaries), and they break dead even on the one that counts most for students, student/faculty ratio. I think we're really splitting hairs here to express this as an ordinal ranking, rather than a rating-points system that more accurately accounts for how close these two schools really are in this category.</p>

<p>and if differences as minute as this can account for a difference of 33 places in the rankings in this category, Hawkette, then the "big decline" you show fror Michigan is trivial; de minimis. It means absolutely nothing, not worth the electronics it's written on.</p>

71

<p>^ oops, I meant "not worth the electrons it's written on"; stepped on my own joke</p>

72

<p>Any change in the criteria/formula used for measuring Faculty Resources between 1992 and 2008?</p>

73

<p>For USNWR's methodology, I'm not here to defend it as I've had similar qualms with things like Freshmen Retention and how minute differences can have real rankings impact. </p>

<p>Having said that, I am not certain how the final score is calculated and if that difference of 33 places is how they judge it in ascertaining the final score. For example, if you compare U Virginia (36th) on the same parameters to a school like Duke (3rd) or the lowest scoring Ivy, Brown (18th), you see that there are sharp differences that don't reflect the relatively small differences in the rankings in this category.</p>

74

<p>"For USNWR's methodology, I'm not here to defend it as I've had similar qualms with things like Freshmen Retention and how minute differences can have real rankings impact."</p>

<p>For USNWR's methodology, I'm not here to defend it as I've had similar qualms with things like Freshmen Retention and how minute differences can have real rankings impact. </p>

<p>Having said that, I am not certain how the final score is calculated and if that difference of 33 places is how they judge it in ascertaining the final score. For example, if you compare U Virginia (36th) on the same parameters to a school like Duke (3rd) or the lowest scoring Ivy, Brown (18th), you see that there are sharp differences that don't reflect the relatively small differences in the rankings in this category."</p>

<p>Then why post it? </p>

<p>Really. Why post something when you have no idea how something is calculated? How relevant the information is that is being used in the rankings? When you don't know if the difference in rankings of over 30 spots really means anything? </p>

<p>You posted the list. Very few people are reading this thread. Check it out. 73 people have looked at this thread. And CC counts the same people as more than once if they look at a thread in different days ( I think). So there may be 20 people looking at this thread. Tomorrow it will be less. </p>

<p>So. Really. I'm interested. No jokes. What's the motivation?</p>

<p>Do you really think that Duke might be better than Brown or vice versa?</p>

75

<p>Last month, Forbes did a magazine on the best states in which to do business. Lots of interesting information therein that is useful for comparing states across the country. Perhaps most relevant to this discussion is the absolute ranking for each state and the column of data related to each state's Growth Prospects Rank. Here is the table of data from Forbes and the explanations of the data points:</p>

<p>Business Costs Rank = Index based on cost of labor, energy & taxes</p>

<p>Labor Rank = Measures educational attainment, net migration, and projected population growth</p>

<p>Regulatory Environment Rank = Measures regulatory & tort climate, incentives, transportation, and bond ratings</p>

<p>Economic Climate Rank = Reflects job, income and gross state product growth as well as unemployment and presence of big companies</p>

<p>Growth Prospects Rank = Reflects projected job, income, and gross state product growth as well as business openings/closings and venture capital investments</p>

<p>Quality of Life Rank = Index of schools, health, crime, cost of living and poverty rates</p>

<p>Overall Rank, 2006 Rank, State, Business Costs Rank, Labor Rank, Regulatory Environment Rank, Economic Climate Rank, Growth Prospects Rank, Quality of Life Rank, Population, State GDP, 5-Yr. % Change</p>

<p>1 ,1 Virginia 17, 5, 1, 11, 8, 6, 7,644,230, 335, 4.4
2 ,4 Utah 12, 11, 17, 9, 16, 12, 2,514,200, 81, 3.5
3 ,3 North Carolina 6, 22, 2, 27, 5, 30, 8,783,550, 336, 3.7
4 ,2 Texas 21, 26, 7, 10, 2, 28, 23,261,060, 888, 3.9
5 ,12 Washington 33, 4, 5, 16, 4, 32, 6,369,300, 256, 3.0
6 ,6 Idaho 11, 10, 30, 3, 23, 27, 1,462,790, 45, 4.6
7 ,9 Florida 31, 15, 12, 1, 3, 35, 18,138,140, 616, 4.9
8 ,5 Colorado 35, 2, 15, 33, 1, 23, 4,736,630, 206, 3.4
9 ,13 North Dakota 5, 37, 16, 11, 42, 14, 636,480, 22, 3.5
10 ,14 Minnesota 32, 13, 19, 23, 26, 1, 5,171,890, 224, 3.8
11 ,8 Delaware 7, 14, 32, 39, 14, 15, 854,950, 52, 3.5
12 ,11 Maryland 41, 3, 24, 8, 15, 21, 5,642,140, 228, 4.0
13 ,20 Tennessee 3, 39, 13, 15, 21, 37, 6,011,440, 215, 4.1
14 ,18 New Hampshire 39, 1, 42, 14, 13, 5, 1,320,830, 54, 4.1
15 ,10 Georgia 23, 25, 4, 34, 17, 29, 9,228,230, 345, 3.3
16 ,22 Missouri 14, 20, 8, 44, 37, 17, 5,831,010, 199, 2.3
17 ,7 Nebraska 15, 36, 11, 30, 38, 13, 1,767,360, 66, 3.3
18 ,15 Arizona 30, 6, 37, 6, 11, 40, 6,118,130, 212, 5.5
19 ,16 New Jersey 46, 9, 33, 25, 7, 3, 8,770,910, 425, 3.7
20 ,21 Kansas 29, 18, 8, 49, 22, 18, 2,750,080, 99, 3.2
21 ,24 Arkansas 9, 40, 22, 17, 9, 45, 2,805,840, 80, 3.8
22 ,26 Nevada 19, 24, 31, 6, 10, 48, 2,483,120, 106, 7.0
23 ,27 South Carolina 20, 28, 6, 36, 17, 43, 4,296,160, 133, 3.0
24 ,25 Iowa 8, 43, 26, 22, 44, 11, 2,978,920, 111, 4.2
25 ,17 South Dakota 1, 31, 45, 17, 35, 24, 778,410, 29, 4.2
26 ,29 New Mexico 10, 34, 43, 5, 6, 50, 1,952,650, 62, 4.1
27 ,32 Indiana 4, 46, 18, 40, 39, 20, 6,298,140, 226, 3.4
28 ,31 Oregon 26, 7, 34, 32, 19, 38, 3,684,490, 134, 3.8
29 ,23 Wyoming 2, 35, 48, 4, 36, 39, 512,830, 23, 4.2
30 ,19 Oklahoma 18, 47, 14, 20, 30, 36, 3,564,570, 104, 2.8
31 ,28 Connecticut 44, 8, 40, 37, 24, 4, 3,528,260, 189, 3.2
32 ,30 Vermont 45, 12, 35, 26, 40, 10, 624,680, 22, 3.8
33 ,35 New York 48, 33, 20, 21, 26, 19, 19,261,520, 947, 3.9
34 ,36 California 50, 17, 39, 17, 12, 26, 36,460,740, 1,606, 4.5
35 ,40 Alabama 27, 45, 23, 23, 20, 41, 4,599,260, 140, 3.9
36 ,37 Massachusetts 49, 19, 29, 47, 29, 2, 6,403,120, 322, 2.9
37 ,42 Hawaii 47, 16, 38, 2, 40, 33, 1,279,100, 49, 4.1
38 ,34 Ohio 36, 42, 8, 45, 49, 9, 11,489,710, 416, 2.6
39 ,41 Pennsylvania 38, 31, 27, 35, 46, 7, 12,466,570, 458, 2.9
40 ,44 Illinois 37, 30, 20, 46, 31, 22, 12,819,060, 523, 2.4
41 ,33 Kentucky 16, 41, 28, 48, 25, 34, 4,201,730, 133, 3.2
42 ,38 Montana 24, 21, 47, 13, 48, 42, 942,050, 27 4.3
43 ,48 Mississippi 13, 48, 25, 40, 34, 47, 2,935,350, 71, 2.2
44 ,39 Wisconsin 34, 38, 44, 38, 33, 8, 5,563,380, 209, 3.3
45 ,43 Rhode Island 42, 23, 49, 28, 28, 25, 1,079,590, 40, 3.1
46 ,45 Michigan 40, 44, 3, 50, 47, 31, 10,139,150, 365, 2.1
47 ,47 Alaska 28, 29, 36, 42, 32, 44, 669,140, 32, 3.8
48 ,46 Maine 43, 27, 46, 30, 42, 16, 1,327,750, 42, 3.1
49 ,50 Louisiana 22, 50, 41, 43, 45, 49, 4,467,120, 126, -0.9
50 ,49 West Virginia 25, 49, 50, 29, 50, 46, 1,820,740, 46, 1.6</p>

76

<p>I agree that if you're going to post ranks from two points in time, you have an obligation to tell people what the methodology was in those two years.</p>

<p>If hawkette won't, I will:</p>

<p>1992 Faculty Resources were based on the ratio of FTE students to FTE instructional faculty; the percentage of FT faculty with top terminal degrees; the percentage of faculty with PT status; and the average salary, with benefits, for tenured full professors. Weights are not offered in the magazine's description.</p>

<p>2008 Faculty Resources were based on the proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students; the proportion of classes with 50 or more students; average faculty pay with benefits adjusted for cost of living differences; the percentage of professors with top terminal degrees; the student-faculty ratio; and the percentage of faculty with PT status. Together class size measures counted for 30 percent, salary counted for 35 percent, highest degree counted for 15%, and the remaining two measures counted for 5% each.</p>

77

<p>dstark,
The comparisons involving Duke and Brown were meant to be contrasted with one of the top publics in the same way that bclinton compared Virginia and Michigan. While those two publics appeared to have small statistical differences and yet large ranking differences, I think that a similar comparison involving either top public vs a top private shows much more sizable differences with LESS ranking differences. Hence, I'm not sure how USNWR does their calculations/weightings in the determination of the final score. </p>

<p>I also suspect that there are sizable differences in the comparisons among public universities as places like U Florida have some poor comparative numbers.</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
Hence, I'm not sure how USNWR does their calculations/weightings in the determination of the final score.

[/quote]

... with magic perhaps? like pulling rabbits out of a hat?</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
2008 Faculty Resources were based on the proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students; the proportion of classes with 50 or more students; average faculty pay with benefits adjusted for cost of living differences ... Together class size measures counted for 30 percent...

[/quote]

whereas "class sizes" were not part of the equation in computing the 1992 Faculty Resources Rank.</p>

<p>In other words, comparing the 2008 Faculty Resources Rank of a university with its rank in 1992 is like comparing apples and oranges.</p>

<p>And to tabulate Gainers/Decliners based on the 1992 and 2008 data is like saying whether oranges are better than apples.</p>

80

<p>
[quote]
Last month, Forbes did a magazine on the best states in which to do business. Lots of interesting information therein that is useful for comparing states across the country. Perhaps most relevant to this discussion is the absolute ranking for each state and the column of data related to each state's Growth Prospects Rank. Here is the table of data from Forbes and the explanations of the data points:

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Goodie. We get to debate something different from USNWR's pathetic attempts at scientific rankings of all sorts of parameters...</p>

<p>The kind of ranking that Forbes did is pretty useless, to be brutally honest. I used to consult with companies about where to locate operations worldwide. When you say a place is "good for business" are you talking about manufacturing businesses, knowledge-focused businesses? Etc.</p>

<p>How is it possible to have North Dakota and Virginia end up so close to one another in a ranking like this? </p>

<p>I am not going to write more because I think it's easy enough to figure out what I am getting at.</p>

<p>Some businesses are focused on lowering cost for particular operations -- and they'll probably go to China. Others are focused on being close to the leading researchers in their fields -- e.g., if they are pursuing nanotech, biotech, info tech, etc., they'll go to the mightily expensive San Francisco Bay Area, grab themselves some of the 35% of US venture funding that gets spent right in the Bay Area, and suck up the higher costs....</p>