Fed Gov ranked colleges

[barrons]

<p><a href="https://ia700504.us.archive.org/0/items/classificationof01unit/classificationof01unit.pdf"&gt;https://ia700504.us.archive.org/0/items/classificationof01unit/classificationof01unit.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

[thumper1]

<p>From 1911. Really important in 2014. Not.</p>

[Gator88NE]

<p>It is an interesting piece of history. Check out page 4 and 5. Back in the day, it seems we had “earnest” students.</p>

<p>

The rating of institutions in this classification is based upon the course which might be followed by the ambitious student proceeding under normal conditions: (1) An earnest student of good ability and health who has complied with the requirements for a bachelor’s degree in a standard college (one requiring the usual four years of high school work, or at least 14 units, for admission, and four years of well-distributed college work for graduation, in charge of a competent faculty of not less than six persons giving their whole time to college work). (2) Whose work includes a solid foundation for the courses which he desires to take for the advanced degree. (3) Who enters upon graduate work within a year or two after taking his bachelor’s degree, without intervening special study and without such advantages as might arise from teaching subjects of a special nature in high school or college, thereby making up in some part deficiencies in his college preparation for graduate work. …

</p>

<p>Oh oh…looks like UF and the Florida State College for Women are Class 3 schools…at least that’s better than TAMU (Class 4).</p>

<p>

CLASS I.
Institutions whose graduates would ordinarily be able to take the master’s degree at any of the large graduate schools in one year after receiving the bachelor’s degree, without necessarily doing more than the amount of work regularly prescribed for such higher degree…</p>

<p>…</p>

<p>CLASS III.
Institutions whose standards of admission and graduation are so low, or so uncertain, or so loosely administered, as to make the requirement of two years for the master’s degree probable. …</p>

<p>CLASS IV.
Institutions whose bachelor’s degree would be approximately two years short of equivalency with the standard bachelor’s degree of a standard college as described above…

</p>

[annoyingdad]

<p>It’s a classification, not a ranking. The definitions of the classes are interesting as are many of the schools in lowly class 3 and 4. Don’t think anyone expected it to be relevant in 2014.</p>

<p>Class 3:</p>

<p>

Institutions whose standards of admission and graduation are so
low, or so uncertain, or so loosely administered,

</p>

[barrons]

<p>It’s the last time the Feds did it. They are working on a new system today. Plus–it’s an historic document. 1st US college rankings ever. And so many top tier still there. </p>

[thumper1]

<p>Barrons…in 1911, a large number of the other colleges in the U.S. did not exist…or existed in different forms (some were two year schools, some were normal colleges for teacher prep).</p>

<p>It’s an interesting piece of history…but really that’s as far as it goes. Those top schools have been around a long time…and some were colleges long before many of the other colleges were even founded.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>Thanks for sharing. It’s interesting to see how colleges were classified 100 years ago, which ones seem to have changed in status (and which haven’t). </p>

[barrons]

<p>Maybe somebody can run a regression and see how much correlation there is over 100 years. Also the idea of ranking in tiers–not new.</p>

[Gator88NE]

<p>It’s a classification based on how well the College prepared students for advanced (Masters, etc.) degrees. It’s closes modern counterpart is the current Carnegie Classification which is used to distinguish higher education institution in terms of their degree programs and institutional mission.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Carnegie has nothing to do with quality of UG. It is to separate LAC,ltd grad, and grad heavy research heavy schools etc.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Somebody has done some comparisons 1911 v today.</p>

<p><a href=“The Persistence of the Old Regime — Crooked Timber”>http://crookedtimber.org/2014/08/06/the-persistence-of-the-old-regime/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[xiggi]

<p>Thanks for posting that information, Barrons. </p>

[jym626]

<p>The OPs link doesn’t seem to open for me, but this one, posted elsewhere, does:
<a href=“The Ticker: How Did the Federal Government Rate Your College a Century Ago?”>The Ticker: How Did the Federal Government Rate Your College a Century Ago?;

[barrons]

<p>I was turned on to that study by Robert Kelchen who is mentioned in the articles. He was researching rankings and now works on one of them in his spare time. He’s also a prof at Seton Hall. </p>