Here’s a new college ranking, based entirely on other college rankings

College Search & Selection
101

“I just don’t agree with your conclusions or methodology. You are essentially saying public schools get a subsidy from the state. We know that. But it misses a key point. When you take all sources of revenue, elite privates have an advantage in that they get significantly more in net tuition and fees, which is more than enough to overcome the state subsidy.”

Not quite IzzoOne, you are forgetting that private universities, while they certainly charge more tuition/student, also give out more financial aid/student. Does it balance things out? Who knows, but the net difference is marginal, especially in the case of public universities like Michigan, where close 40% of the undergraduate student population are OOS, and almost all of those are full pay. Also where you have a large graduate student body that pays high tuition, regardless of residence status.

To get a better feel for this, just look at the figures published by the universities. For example, Michigan’s net tuition revenue was $1.1 billion last year, compared to Duke’s $450 million and Brown’s $300 million. That’s $27,000/student for Michigan compared to $28,000/student at Duke and $34,000 at Brown. No difference at all on a per/student basis.

So, to recap, Michigan (and UVa and Cal if you consider the fact that it has no medical school), have endowments per student that rival those of private elite universities Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Penn etc…, especially when you factor in state funding. They also generate as much money per student from tuition, when you factor in financial aid. So again, I wonder why so many here claim that private universities are so much better off financially. According to each measure so far, the advantage is either negligible or nonexistent.

102

The general issue here is how we account for college financial resources (FR). This is important because the available financial resources can affect all the other resources available to students and faculty. In #79, IsaacTheFuture shared endowment/student and R&D expenditure/student figures. Alexandre challenged the endowment/student numbers because he thinks they bias the FR picture unfairly in favor of rich private schools, by failing to account for revenue sources uniquely available to state schools.

We’re getting into complex information that won’t make begin to make sense unless we compare similar kinds of data (e.g. financial assets only, or revenues only, or expenditures only), citing sources that appear to comprehensively cover the class of data we’re comparing. For example, I’ve looked at IPEDS data on revenues per FTE student and instruction spending per FTE student as alternatives to the USNWR FR or endowment/student comparisons. A table presentation tends to be clearer than a narrative.

103

Revenues* Per Full Time Equivalent Student
(source: IPEDS, FY 2014)

TOTAL … Institution Name
$497,623 Princeton University
$446,196 Yale University
$436,824 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
$436,197 Stanford University
$372,014 Harvard University
$331,695 California Institute of Technology
$245,209 Dartmouth College
$235,088 Washington University in St Louis
$213,551 Duke University
$198,593 University of Chicago
… … …
$198,561 Johns Hopkins University
$183,936 Rice University
$183,306 University of Notre Dame
$180,745 Columbia University in the City of New York
$177,051 Northwestern University
$176,926 University of Pennsylvania
$166,067 Wake Forest University
$155,934 Emory University
$133,860 Vanderbilt University
$121,971 Brown University
… … …
$113,567 Cornell University
$106,213 Case Western Reserve University
$101,221 University of Rochester
$100,954 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
$96,247 Carnegie Mellon University
$92,208 University of California-Los Angeles
$87,187 University of Southern California
$84,654 University of Virginia-Main Campus
$83,678 Georgetown University
$83,364 New York University

  • Revenue Sources Tracked by IPEDS Revenues from tuition and fees per FTE Revenues from state appropriations per FTE Revenues from local appropriations per FTE Revenues from government grants and contracts per FTE Revenues from private gifts grants and contracts per FTE Revenues from investment return per FTE Other core revenues per FTE

This is a more comprehensive alternative to the list Alexandre provided in #93.

My data source is here:
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/
(select “Compare institutions”; input school names; select variables, using “Frequently used/Derived Variables”; pick “financial indicators” then “Core revenues per FTE enrollment, by source”; select all)
Download the output as a spreadsheet; sum values in each row; then sort from high to low according to total dollar values.

The order of schools in this list corresponds rather closely to the USNWR national university ranking.
Data that USNWR doesn’t use as a ranking factor, from a source that is separate from the Common Data Set (which provides much of the USNWR data), paints a picture that is fairly similar to the USNWR ranking. I wouldn’t expect that to happen if the USNWR data were significantly biased/gamed/rigged.

Is the above list of revenue sources complete? If not, what is it missing? Is there a better data source than IPEDS?
Of course, it still doesn’t account for expenditures. Also note that I’m not considering universities that are outside the USNWR top 30s. It’s possible that a few lower-ranked schools would displace some schools on the above list.

104

Instruction Expenditures Per Full Time Equivalent Student
(source: IPEDS, FY 2014)

Column 1 shows instruction expenses per FTE student;
Column 2 shows Instruction expenses as a percent of total core expenses

Instruction Expenses … Percent of Core Expenses … University Name
$107,982.00 … 50 … Yale University
$105,933.00 … 63 … Washington University in St Louis
$93,146.00 … 42 … Stanford University
$92,590.00 … 33 … California Institute of Technology
$83,779.00 … 59 … University of Chicago
$80,944.00 … 63 … Columbia University in the City of New York
$79,372.00 … 56 … Vanderbilt University
$77,339.00 … 45 … Johns Hopkins University
$62,770.00 … 25 … Massachusetts Institute of Technology
$52,224.00 … 34 … Princeton University
… …
$50,756.00 … 40 … Duke University
$49,500.00 … 30 … Harvard University
$49,018.00 … 38 … University of Pennsylvania
$43,170.00 … 57 … University of Southern California
$40,450.00 … 40 … Emory University
$40,056.00 … 50 … Rice University
$40,020.00 … 46 … University of California-Los Angeles
$37,339.00 … 39 … Northwestern University
$33,278.00 … 44 … Brown University
… …
$31,807.00 … 42 … Carnegie Mellon University
$31,102.00 … 45 … Georgetown University
$30,237.00 … 38 … New York University
$30,078.00 … 37 … Case Western Reserve University
$28,983.00 … 38 … University of Rochester
$26,803.00 … 18 … Wake Forest University
$26,632.00 … 43 … University of Notre Dame
$26,542.00 … 58 … Boston University
$25,710.00 … 38 … University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
$25,102.00 … 21 … Dartmouth College
$23,818.00 … 32 … Cornell University
… …
$22,728.00 … 37 … University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
$21,627.00 … 46 … Tulane University of Louisiana
$21,543.00 … 33 … Tufts University
$20,571.00 … 49 … Boston College
$19,069.00 … 36 … Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
$18,988.00 … 32 … University of California-Berkeley
$18,713.00 … 42 … University of California-Irvine
$16,988.00 … 36 … University of Virginia-Main Campus
$15,593.00 … 45 … Northeastern University
$14,961.00 … 36 … Brandeis University

My data source is here:
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/
(select “Compare institutions”; input school names; select variables, using “Frequently used/Derived Variables”; pick “financial indicators” then “Percent distribution of core expenses, by function”; select “Instruction expenses as a percent of total core expenses (GASB)” and select “Instruction expenses as a percent of total core expenses (FASB)”; also select “Core expenses per FTE enrollment, by function”; select “Instruction expenses per FTE (GASB)” and select “Instruction expenses per FTE (FASB)”)
Download the output as a spreadsheet; sum values in each row; then sort from high to low according to total dollar values.

Schools in the top 10 on average spend 47% percentage of core revenues on instruction;
Schools in the bottom 10 on average spend 39.2% of core revenues on instruction.
See previous post for a list of revenues.

105

^

Sorry, those last lines immediately above should read “… of core expenses …” not “of core revenues”.

106

^Those charts are interesting. While it might not change the top rankings much, I’m guessing instructional expenditures is a better measure of undergraduate quality than overall revenues.

107

tk, thank you for posts. I think your posts pretty much validate what I have been saying all along.

  1. The student to faculty ratio. I never claimed that large public elites like Michigan matched private elites exactly in this domain. It would not make sense for them to do so. Universities do not hire faculty to fulfill a student to ratio quota, but rather, to have a full complement of professors required to run a department optimally. Larger universities benefit from economies of scale here. While the USNWR rewards universities for low ratios, it is inefficient. I merely stated that the difference isn't significant. Whether it is 11:1 or 15:1 is not fundamentally different. 4:1 or 5:1 or 6:1 would be fundamentally different, and that is why I think private elites are lying. Not necessarily to improve their rank (as you aptly point our, the student to faculty ratio is only a small part of the overall ranking), but rather to lull parents and students into a false sense of security. But the larger issue here is that they are lying, and as you aptly point out, again, they do so out in the open. That clearly shows how little the USNWR cares about data integrity. Such blatant abuse goes uncorrected. Are you so naive that with so much at stake, universities who are willing to lie about such a little part of the equation as student to faculty ratio are going to be truthful about more hidden variables? Think about it.
  2. The revenues per student figures in post 102 look about right. For a university with 44,000 students, Michigan isn't too shabby. It is comparable to CMU, Cornell and Brown. You say that this ranking closely mirrors the overall USNWR ranking. Fine. But does it mirror the financial resources ranking? According to this measure, Michigan is #24, yet Michigan's USNWR financial resource ranking is #40. And that does not even factor in economies of scale.
  3. The instruction spending per student figure looks suspicious to me. Why do schools like Michigan, Cornell, Dartmouth and Brown spend so much less on instruction than say WUSTL, Vanderbilt, JHU or Chicago? It is difficult to know what those universities are including in their calculations. It would seem that some of those universities are including the salaries of faculty in their medical programs while others are not. Besides, cost of living impacts this calculation significantly. Comparing faculty salaries of professors in a Midwestern college town to that of professors in areas with far high cost of living without adjusting accordingly isn't fair. Not that I mind Michigan being in the same company as Cal, UVa, Cornell and Dartmouth.

At any rate, I still think that Michigan and UVa’s Financial Resources rank of #40 and #50 respectively is ludicrous. Both are among the top 20 where financial resources are concerned when you factor in economies of scale and cost of living.

108

At least up to a point, I think you’re right. About the S:F reporting anyway.
To say that some universities are deliberately lying about them is a strong charge. Given the number of universities and the amount of data, it would not be surprising if from time to time some colleges misinterpret some instructions. However, it is more troubling if the CDS stakeholders (including USNWR and the universities themselves) are letting the same error pass year after year.

As for instruction spending per student, I too thought some of the differences looked odd (especially the big differences in some of those percentages such as Columbia at 63% but Dartmouth at only 21%). Maybe someone else can have a look and add clarity.

109

In response to #54^^ Berkeley is listed as something like #4 on the USNWR World Rankings. Instead of Duke in the top 10, I’d vote for Johns Hopkins (too low on this list), Notre Dame or even UCLA. Duke is one of the those schools that enjoys a top reputation among the Southern Schools, but its very regional–not a top 10 by the rest of the country’s standards IMHO.

110

Replying to Alexandre, post #100. You are starting to sway me, but not fully :). Keeping it to a discussion of undergraduate study, there are a couple of things to point out. First, the IPEDS data shows something quite different to what you suggest, with Michigan at less than half of what Duke spends. There could be flaws in IPEDS, but it is probably as comprehensive as anything out there. Second, (although perhaps the biggest point here) Michigan funds $433M in research per year with INSTITUTIONAL (not external) funds. This is the highest total in the country by a wide margin and a huge pot of money. This money has to come from another source of revenue, including tuition, endowment, state funds, etc, but it DOES NOT GO toward instruction, which is what is being discussed (and perhaps this explains IPEDS data). Third, you cite $27K as the net tuition revenue per student at Michigan, but College Factual, specifically for undergraduates, has it at $21K. Given that undergraduate tuition at Michigan for UNDERGRADUATES is $14.4K or so for the 60% of undergraduates who are in state and $45.4K for the remainder out of state, the maximum that could be attained per undergraduate would be slightly less than $27K BEFORE any aid/discounts. According to the Michigan Almanac, the University provided about $240M in grants and scholarships to undergraduates, so I think the College Factual is going to be closer to an accurate number. Third, if you are citing $1.1B in net tuition revenue for UM from the financial report from last year, keep in mind that it includes Flint and Dearborn. I wouldn’t argue that Ann Arbor is a large percentage of it, but those campuses are a part.

The University of Michigan is in essence partially private (like Cornell is partially public) at this point. The graduate schools of law, business are essentially operating as private schools from a tuition level. At Ross for an MBA, in-state tuition is $59K vs $63K for out-of-state. Not much difference. They are on the road to adopting the private model.

Again, I’m not disparaging Michigan in any way, I’m just trying to decipher the accounting as best I can. When you get a 44K student institution with a wide range of fields, a medical center, and a huge research operation, it is a complex colossus and it is difficult to figure out how it all works, particularly when applied to undergraduate education. Small LACs are so straight forward in comparison. Tuition plus endowment pays professors who teach.

111

IzzoOne, you are correct in saying that it is difficult to interpret a research university’s finances, especially one that has a medical center and a large research apparatus. But I am not certain why you are singling Michigan out. All top research universities, private or public, fall in the same category. Brown, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell and Dartmouth all seem to spend as much in instruction as Michigan. Is Michigan the only one that should be criticized?

“Third, if you are citing $1.1B in net tuition revenue for UM from the financial report from last year, keep in mind that it includes Flint and Dearborn. I wouldn’t argue that Ann Arbor is a large percentage of it, but those campuses are a part.”

The $1.1 billion is purely for the AA campus. The net total tuition revenue, after scholarship and FA contributions, for all three campuses combined was $1.3 billion last year.

At any rate, as I have always maintained, when you factor in endowment, state funding, tuition revenues, etc…and account for cost of living and economies of scale, Michigan’s financial position is extremely potent, certainly on par with the likes of Brown, CMU, Columbia, Cornell and Penn. The USNWR financial resources rank for Michigan, as well as several other top public universities, is so off the mark, it can be considered fraudulent. There aren’t 39 research universities that are better off financially than Michigan, or 49 than are better off than UVa. Both of those universities should be among the top 20 in terms of financial resources.

112

@Alexandre, I simply was responding to your statement in 100. You claimed that Michigan spends as much on education per undergraduate as Duke. I just doubt that that is the case. You skipped over my points. 1) IPEDS does not agree with what you said and College Factual does not as well 2) If you are calculating only net undergraduate tuition and fees, Michigan could not have $27K per student because (with undergraduate in-state tuition of 14.4K per student and $240M in grants and scholarships to undergraduates) it exceeds what is mathematically possible. What you cited would be average for all students, not specifically undergraduates (assuming you are right on excluding Flint and Dearborn, and the report on the Michigan website I saw with the revenue you cite included them – I admit they are probably no more than 10% or so of total, so it wasn’t my main point). 3) If we are truly focusing on undergraduate instruction, you have to include only the money that goes to that purpose. Again, look at what Michigan does. They have a MAJOR focus on research. The university put $497M in institutional funds (not externally funds like NIH) into research in 2015 per the NSF https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=report&fice=2325&id=h2 . That is far more than any other school and my point is it is money that is not going to undergraduate education but has been prioritized for research instead. As a point of comparison, Johns Hopkins, the top research institution, only put only $97M in institutional funds toward research.

So, I see how you think I am “picking” on Michigan. In my view, I was just focusing on the statement you made. I have a very favorable view of Michigan.

Looking at higher education from a policy standpoint, I actually believe too much money is being spent on it. Any segment that has significantly outpaced the rate of inflation for 40+ years in a row (even significantly outpacing healthcare, which itself is out of control) should be analyzed closely. Keep in mind that Duke, even though it is nominally private, gets huge benefits from the government in the form of research money, medical payments, Pell grants, etc., and the tax free status of its endowment as a non-profit. Looking at it from that perspective rich private schools get more benefits from the state than public institutions (e.g. Princeton with a tax exempt $25B+ endowment for only 8K students).

So with that said, although I do believe Michigan spends less on undergraduate education per student (setting aside things that are not direct benefits like research, graduate education, etc.), I think it probably spends enough and is closer to what is reasonable to spend.

113

@Alexandre, Perhaps we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the financial points. I’m running short on time to loo, up all the data!

My personal view is in the last part. Too much money is spent on higher education overall. It is driving up student debt in an unsustainable way. Chasing ratings like USNWR, along with the availability and structure of financial aid, and the tax status of endowments, contributes to an unhealthy arms race mentality and is not serving the public good.

114

@Alexandre, here is an interesting article if you are interested in the type of cost shifting that goes on at research universities: http://www.changinghighereducation.com/2015/03/cost-allocation-in-the-research-university.html

115

“If you are calculating only net undergraduate tuition and fees, Michigan could not have $27K per student because (with undergraduate in-state tuition of 14.4K per student and $240M in grants and scholarships to undergraduates) it exceeds what is mathematically possible.”

Fair enough, but remember that 44% of Michigan’s 29,000 undergrads are OOS, and the majority pay the full $45k tuition. So it may not hit $27k per student, but it certainly isn’t much lower (roughly $20k per student after you deduct the $240 million in student aid). And I am not including the $300 million of state funding. Even then, it still isn’t far below the $25,000-$30,000/student generated at most elite private universities, especially when you factor in economies of scale.

“They have a MAJOR focus on research. The university put $497M in institutional funds (not externally funds like NIH) into research in 2015 per the NSF https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=report&fice=2325&id=h2 . That is far more than any other school and my point is it is money that is not going to undergraduate education but has been prioritized for research instead. As a point of comparison, Johns Hopkins, the top research institution, only put only $97M in institutional funds toward research.”

This figure is misleading IzzoOne. You are insinuating that Michigan is funding research inappropriately, by diverting funds designated for undergraduate students for research purposes. In the case of Michigan and Cornell, two universities I am very familiar with, each revenue and expenditure stream is self-contained, self-generated and independent from all others. At Michigan, the Medical Center is completely self-funded, including the hospital, the medical school and medical research, whether through federal funding, hospital revenues, patent revenues etc…The athletics programs are also completely self-funded, primarily thanks to the football program’s revenues. Not only are those programs self-funded, they are actually profitable. Listing those programs as liabilities is incorrect since they do not take away from other important functions, such as undergraduate education. Perhaps that is why Cornell and Michigan appear to spend much less on undergraduate students than schools with similar resources and revenue streams who claim much higher spending per student. In such cases, there may indeed be “cost allocation shifting” as you suggest. That may explain why a university with Michigan’s financial resources ends ranked #40 among research universities for financial resources when it reality, it is among the top 10 in absolute terms, and among the top 20 in relative terms. UVa is also among the top 20 in relative terms. Who knows what some universities include in their financial resources calculations.

That being said, I have no trouble with research universities including research spending that goes on in programs that enroll undergraduate students, such as Engineering, the hard sciences, etc…, since many undergrads actually participate in the research and publications. At Michigan, roughly 50% of undergrads in STEM fields (where most of the research takes place anyway) work with professors on research, so they directly benefit from research. I don’t know if Michigan or other major research universities include those numbers in their figures, but if they do, I would not find it objectionable.

I also agree that comparing financial figures at research universities to those at LACs makes no sense because, as you aptly point out, LACs have much different…and simpler revenue streams.

116

Alexandre, again, from an undergraduate education perspective, I don’t agree with your conclusions about comparative resources and I do not believe the facts support you.

I want to be clear on the enormous scale of the cost shifting that often goes on at research universities in general and then turn to Michigan specifically. Let me start with this quote from John V Lombardi, a professor and former administrator at Johns Hopkins in the book “How Universities Work”:

“Universities often report a number that appears to indicate how much the university spends on instruction. We might believe that this number accurately represents teaching expenses and even do some analysis based on that belief. We would be wrong to do so.”

The article I provided in #113 looks at the University of California system, which reported $18K in 2013-14 in per student undergraduate education expenditures. The research looked at this from a cost accounting basis (where the resources and time are actually spent) and concluded that the actual was $7,500 per student. That is only 42% of the total the system was reporting, and is actually less than average tuition and fees.

What accounts for the difference? The report concludes that the system has shifted about $10K of cost from research and graduate studies to undergraduates on a per student basis. System wide, this was about $2B in 2013-14.

So, does this go on at the University of Michigan? Let’s look at the facts. The University of Michigan spent $1.37B in research in 2015 according to NSF data ( https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=report&fice=2325&id=h2 ). Of that total, $497M, or 36% of the total came from internal institutional funds. The rest came from external sources like the Federal Government.

Where did the University of Michigan come up with $497M (which is BY FAR the largest internal funding of research at a U.S. university and is in the range of 36% of net tuition plus state funds)? The report I referenced earlier makes this statement:

“Although some relatively small portion of these internal research costs may be covered by restricted endowments and the like, most of these costs must be paid out of unrestricted funds. Importantly, for most universities, by far the largest source of unrestricted income is student tuition or state funds nominally labeled as educational funds.”

The logical conclusion is a substantial part of the $497M comes from tuition and state funds. That is $11,300 per student of tuition, fees, and state money that is NOT going to undergraduate education (which is a similar but higher number than what is shifted at the University of California). This might mean the actual total for a UM undergraduate is more in the $13K or so range per student. Well, well below many of the figures cited in this thread.

Does this apply to many research universities? Absolutely. I’m not denying that. What I do want to get across, though, is that the universities that do not cost shift or do comparatively little of it, are the ones that actually provide comparatively more resources to undergraduates. Many of these are going to be LACs or more undergraduate focused schools.

You said my figures were misleading and I am insinuating malfeasance. I am just trying to be factual. The practice I described above is not illegal, so I am not claiming malfeasance. Students and families are going into debt to pay for research, and I believe that is poor policy.

117

IzzoOne, the UC system is a very, very poor example. You do not appreciate just how wealthy Michigan is. Cal and UCLA receive the lions’s share, but other research-heavy schools, such as San Diego, Santa Barbara and Davis lack the resources that Michigan possesses. In fact, those three schools have a combined 90,000 students, spend over $2 billion in research, and their combined endowment is under $2.5 billion (Michigan, which is half the size of those three schools combined, has an endowment of $10 billion).

From an endowment and tuition revenue point of view, even Cal and UCLA do not come close to Michigan. Michigan’s endowment alone is almost as large of the entire UC system combined…well, as large as Cal, UCLA and UCSF combined anyway. Cal, which has the largest endowment among UC’s, has an endowment/student roughly half that of Michigan, and that’s after you remove Michigan’s medical school share of the endowment (fair is fair since Cal does not have a medical school). Each of the UC’s save Berkeley and LA has an endowment under $25,000/student. Michigan’s endowment per student is $227,000. Michigan received $1.1 billion in net tuition revenues last year, compared to $3.3 billion for the UCs, but Michigan has 44,000 students, while the UCs have a combined 250,000 students. So on a per student basis, Michigan receives double the tuition. I realize those figures are for all students, including graduate students. However, in the case of Michigan vs the UCs, Michigan’s advantage would be even more pronounced for undergraduate tuition as it has a far larger percentage of OOS students than the UCs, and a far larger percentage of full pay students. On top of all that, the cost of living in Ann Arbor is significantly lower than the cost of living in CA, which means that Michigan bang for the buck is significantly greater.

“The logical conclusion is a substantial part of the $497M comes from tuition and state funds. That is $11,300 per student of tuition, fees, and state money that is NOT going to undergraduate education (which is a similar but higher number than what is shifted at the University of California). This might mean the actual total for a UM undergraduate is more in the $13K or so range per student. Well, well below many of the figures cited in this thread.”

I cannot argue with that. It is hard to know for sure IzzoOne. I would be lying if I said otherwise. I am inclined to believe that Michigan’s revenue streams are large enough to absorb those research costs without interfering with the costs of undergraduate instruction. I know the University received $900 million from federal, state and local grants and contracts, and another $200 million in non-governmental sponsored programs. In addition to that, Michigan receives over $400 million in private donations and has another $450 million from the endowment. That’s $2 billion in revenue that the University has at its disposal, not including the $1.3 billion it receives in net tuition and state funding.

But I must stress that not all research should be excluded from the equation. Engineering, Chemistry and Physics research, for example, serves undergraduate students as well as graduate students. Over 50% of undergraduate students work closely with faculty on research. In such cases, research is an asset to undergraduate students, not a liability.

“You said my figures were misleading and I am insinuating malfeasance. I am just trying to be factual.”

But are you being factual? You are making assumptions aren’t you? If anything, the fact that Michigan is reporting only $20k expenditure per student seems to absolve the university of seriously tampering with the data. I would be more concerned with universities that claim spending upwards of $40,000/student.

118

Alexandre,

I don’t think you’ve read or carefully evaluated what I’ve provided or argued. Did you read the article I referred you to? http://www.changinghighereducation.com/2015/03/cost-allocation-in-the-research-university.html . And are you clear that we are discussing undergraduate education? Let’s stay focused on that.

My overarching point is this: large research universities may have lots of resources, but they do not apply them evenly often favor research and graduate programs at the expense of undergraduate education. This takes place in the shape of “cost shifting” – making undergraduates pick up part of the bill (often in the form of student debt) for research and graduate education. This goes on at most research universities, and should be a consideration when evaluating an institution for undergraduate education. Don’t believe me? Look again at the quote in my last post from John Lombardi who was provost at Hopkins and president at the University of Florda.

To your points. The University of California is in fact a very, very good comparison FOR THE POINT I WAS MAKING regarding cost shifting. I used the UC because it was the focus of an academic study and the UC system is composed primarily of major research universities. The University of Michigan is a major research university, therefore this is an appropriate comparison. The academic study referred to in the article quantified how much cost shifting goes on at UC and found only 42% of what was reported as education spending (using the common, but misleading method) is actually dedicated to undergraduate study ($7,500 a year vs. the $18,000 cited). The rest is actually dedicated to research and graduate study.

I then went on to look at Michigan, where nearly HALF A BILLION in research was funded by the institution itself in 2015 (and not by external sources). The article says the vast majority of these funds typically comes from unrestricted funds, which are tuition and state funds. If you apply this to Michigan, it means 36% of total tuition and state funds were shifted to research and not education. If Michigan operates in a similar manner to the UC, and I think it likely does, the percentage of the funding footed by undergraduates could be even higher. On average, this is $11,300 per student per year.

So then the question becomes, does the research funded by cost shifting benefit undergraduates? You point out that some of it may benefit undergraduates in STEM. It may, but I would counter that you don’t need to spend anywhere near this magnitude to provide undergraduates research opportunities or to be successful. Washington and Lee University, which ranked first among all schools in the Economist ranking by economic value added (how well graduates do) http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/10/value-university spends NO institutional money on research. Swarthmore, which provides research opportunities to almost all STEM students and ranked 5th in percentage of undergraduates who go on to get STEM doctorates, spent well under $1,000 in institutionally-funded research per student. (Michigan is not in the top 50 in this NSF report – I’m not swiping at Michigan – state schools don’t perform well for some reason, with only Berkeley, Colorado School of Mines, and William and Mary showing up and they are towards the bottom. Perhaps topic for another post.)

I recognize what a large enterprise the University of Michigan is. It is a large institution with a large medical center (which is typically almost half of the entire enterprises revenue) and a large research and graduate operation. It has a large endowment. I get that and am not in any way denying that. I am just saying that we need to be careful when attributing it to undergraduate study.

On the subject of endowments, you need to be careful there as well for impact on undergraduate education. Most endowments are restricted in purpose. I don’t have any breakdown on Michigan, but if you look at the University of Virginia, which you have cited before, in a recent disclosure, about 13% of the endowment belonged to the College of Arts and Sciences (graduate and undergraduate), which has about 56% of UVA students. Medicine / Medical Center has about 31% of the endowment, but only has about 3% of UVA students. I am not saying UVA is poor by any stretch, but this puts it into perspective when you compare it to nearby Washington and Lee where the undergraduate school with about $1.4B endowment for 1,900 undergraduates.

119

Alexandre, just so I can be an be considered an equal opportunity reality checker, here is a NPR story deconstructing Duke’s claims of undergraduate education spending. Although they are doing in a in a typical non-confrontational NPR sort of way, you do leave the story with an understanding that what the university says is highly misleading, at least for many undergraduates. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/02/14/277015271/duke-60-000-a-year-for-college-is-actually-a-discount .

I will admit the University of Michigan Ann Arbor has a lot of financial resources overall. I would ask that you be a bit more circumspect in describing how these resources are actually apply (and are funded via cost shifting) by undergraduates.

120

My question is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.