<p>The reason lac's are ranked separately from universities and large colleges is because they are fundamentally different from their counterparts. Ranking the two types in the same category would be like comparing apples and oranges. Although Amherst or Williams may not have a science lab or football team that is as well established or expansive as one at Harvard or Michigan, it doesn't mean the quality of an education at Amherst or Williams should be relegated to the doldrums of poor USNWR rankings. Comparing public schools to private schools, at the risk of using a metaphor to death, is like comparing two different types of apples. There are differences, and one is better than another for some students, but they strike me as mostly internal: how funding is received and delegated, historical founding and mission statement. Class size, faculty quality, athletic and research facilities, course selection, etc., are similar enough among different schools that comparing public vs. private in the rankings is not harmful.</p>
<p>"I know U Michigan has a large endowment when measured in absolute dollars, but it falls significantly vis-a-vis many privates when measured in per capita terms."</p>
<p>Like I've said before, it's not as if schools are giving out iPods to each individual student. Most major spending is on things that will benefit all the students at the school, or at least within a specific area. Does a library or expensive lab equipment really need to cost five times as much to service five times as many students?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Like I've said before, it's not as if schools are giving out iPods to each individual student.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Didn't Duke do this?</p>
<p>"I know U Michigan has a large endowment when measured in absolute dollars, but it falls significantly vis-a-vis many privates when measured in per capita terms."</p>
<p>Hawkette, one step at a time. You said that state universities aren't wealthy and that the current trend is worsening their position. That isn't accurate and you should admit it. Michigan is destroying every university in the nation in terms of endowment growth. It is not even close. Michigan's ewndowment has grown by 2,700% in 20 years. No other university's endowment growth has exceeded 1,500% over the same period of time. In fact, most of Michigan's peer institutions have experience endowment growth of 500%-1,000% over the last 20 years. In 1985, Michigan's endowment per student was not even among the top 100 among private research universities. Now, it is among the top 25 and only a dozen of those have significantly higher endowments per student. Schools like Boston College, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Tufts, USC and Wake Forest now have lower endowments per student than Michigan. Schools like Brown, Columbia, Cornell and Vanderbilt have only slightly higher endowments per student and if Michigan's endowment growth over the last 20-25 years is duplicated over the next 5 years, it should overtake those schools as well. Currently, as it stands, only 12 or so national research universities with over 3,000 students have endowments per student that are signicantly higher than Michigan's ($300,000 or more). </p>
<p>"And would likely fall even further if the true cost of running graduate programs per capita were part of the calculation."</p>
<p>Are you telling me that Michigan is unique in this regard? Are you telling me that schools like Chicago, Columbia, Duke, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Penn, Stanford etc.., all of which have far larger graduate schools (relative to the total student body in all cases, in the absolute sense in the case of Harvard, Columbia and Johns Hopkins)) than Michigan do not lean more heavily toward their graduate programs? Do you think Duke's huge medical school and hospital complex don't hoover a huge chunk of its endowment? What of Harvard's gargantuan Law, Medical and Business programs? And Johns Hopkins' Medical program and hospital? </p>
<p>"Also, if U Michigan is so wealthy, then how in the heck is U Michigan not meeting 100% of financial need of its students?"</p>
<p>Again, baby steps. A university does not change overnight. As it stands, Michigan meets 100% of in-staters' needs and roughly 90% of out-of-staters' needs. Not bad for a university with 25,000 undergrads (9,000 of which are out-of-state).</p>
<p>Uh oh, I predict more action coming ahead.</p>
<p>Historical growth rates don't have a lot of value and are heavily impacted by the laws of big and small numbers.</p>
<p>Here are the estimated per capita numbers for the USNWR Top 50 national universities and Top 25 LACs and a few selected other colleges that get mentioned from time to time. There are significant differences in the wealth levels of private vs public universities. </p>
<p>Per Capita Rank , Endowment Per Capita , National Universities , USNWR Rank</p>
<pre><code> PUBLICS in BOLD
</code></pre>
<p>1 , $2,331,935 , Princeton , 1
2 , $2,212,096 , Yale , 3
3 , $2,070,846 , Harvard , 2
4 , $973,414 , MIT , 7
5 , $907,589 , Rice , 17
6 , $891,684 , Cal Tech , 5
7 , $867,677 , Stanford , 4
8 , $642,885 , Dartmouth , 11
9 , $583,046 , U Chicago , 9
10 , $544,297 , Notre Dame , 19
11 , $518,529 , Emory , 17
12 , $506,017 , Duke , 8
13 , $469,546 , Yeshiva , 52
14 , $460,114 , Wash U StL , 12
15 , $407,041 , Northwestern , 14
16 , $340,159 , Brown , 14
17 , $324,352 , U TEXAS , 44
18 , $310,861 , Columbia , 9
19 , $295,580 , U Penn , 5
20 , $294,378 , Vanderbilt , 19
21 , $273,976 , Cornell , 12
22 , $229,924 , Case Western , 41
23 , $218,113 , Wake Forest , 30
24 , $204,467 , U Rochester , 35
25 , $182,145 , Tufts , 28
26 , $180,163 , U VIRGINIA , 23
27 , $172,746 , U MICHIGAN , 25
28 , $158,303 , Lehigh , 31
29 , $147,388 , J Hopkins , 14
30 , $143,152 , TEXAS A&M , 62
31 , $130,128 , Brandeis , 31
32 , $129,184 , Boston College , 35
33 , $122,617 , SMU , 67
34 , $121,101 , USC , 27
35 , $114,181 , Tulane , 50
36 , $110,251 , Carnegie Mellon , 22
37 , $109,377 , Rensselaer , 44
38 , $106,603 , Pepperdine , 54
39 , $101,612 , UC BERKELEY , 21
40 , $93,392 , Georgetown , 23
41 , $90,175 , U PITTSBURGH , 59
42 , $86,489 , G. Washington , 54
43 , $85,288 , U NORTH CAROLINA , 28
44 , $82,591 , W&M , 33
45 , $77,383 , UCLA , 25
NA , $76,006 , Baylor , 75
NA , $71,430 , GEORGIA TECH , 35
NA , $70,788 , U DELAWARE , 71
NA , $64,640 , Syracuse , 50
NA , $59,366 , U MINNESOTA , 71
NA , $58,837 , U NEBRASKA , 91
NA , $57,907 , U WASHINGTON , 42
NA , $57,737 , NYU , 34
NA , $54,179 , U Miami FL , 52
NA , $48,311 , UC DAVIS , 42
NA , $48,147 , OHIO STATE , 57
NA , $46,657 , PURDUE , 64
NA , $45,145 , U KANSAS , 85
NA , $42,999 , U ALABAMA , 91
NA , $42,376 , UCSD , 38
NA , $42,308 , U WISCONSIN , 38
NA , $40,899 , INDIANA U , 75
NA , $40,435 , U MISSOURI , 91
NA , $37,156 , PENN STATE , 48
NA , $36,939 , U ILLINOIS , 38
NA , $36,773 , Boston Univ , 57
NA , $34,715 , UC SANTA CRUZ , 79
NA , $34,668 , UC IRVINE , 44
NA , $33,678 , UC SANTA BARBARA , 44
NA , $31,394 , U MARYLAND , 54
NA , $28,409 , MICHIGAN STATE , 71
NA , $26,188 , U FLORIDA , 49
NA , $24,426 , U GEORGIA , 59
NA , $24,383 , RUTGERS , 59</p>
<p>Per Capita Rank , Endowment Per Capita , Liberal Arts College , USNWR Rank</p>
<p>1 , $1,139,742 , Pomona , 7
2 , $1,038,883 , Grinnell , 11
3 , $1,008,724 , Amherst , 2
4 , $971,181 , Swarthmore , 3
5 , $923,404 , Williams , 1
6 , $714,653 , Wellesley , 4
7 , $542,086 , U Richmond , 40
8 , $500,171 , Smith , 17
9 , $482,351 , Bowdoin , 7
10 , $461,582 , Haverford , 10
11 , $417,641 , CMC , 11
12 , $389,650 , W&L , 15
13 , $380,928 , Hamilton , 17
14 , $374,542 , Middlebury , 5
15 , $354,599 , Vassar , 11
16 , $353,879 , Harvey Mudd , 15
17 , $330,923 , Carleton , 5
18 , $295,487 , Oberlin , 20
19 , $287,647 , Davidson , 9
20 , $252,325 , Wesleyan , 11
21 , $250,458 , Colgate , 17</p>
<p>
[quote]
No. It's correct. On the common data set, only students who are admitted and matriculated off the waitlist count as an acceptance.
[/quote]
Are you sure? The CDS says "Admitted applicants should include wait-listed students who were subsequently offered admission." It says nothing about whether they matriculate or not.<br>
[quote]
Schools like Brown, Columbia, Cornell and Vanderbilt have only slightly higher endowments per student
[/quote]
According to <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/20/education/edlife/princeton_graphic.gif%5B/url%5D:">http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/20/education/edlife/princeton_graphic.gif:</a>
Brown $350,226
Columbia $337,398
Vanderbilt $300,647
Cornell $276,222
Michigan $145,573</p>
<p>I'd say that's a pretty big difference...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you sure? The CDS says "Admitted applicants should include wait-listed students who were subsequently offered admission." It says nothing about whether they matriculate or not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Trust me on this. The practice is to only "offer admission" if a student decides to matriculate. What will occur is that an adcon will call the student and offer admission if they choose to accept.</p>
<p>Just compare the numbers that are published in April after an acceptance rate is announced to what shows up on the CDS. Here's UVA, for example:</p>
<p>University</a> of Virginia Extends Admissions Offers to the Class of 2011
UVa</a> CDS - C. First-time, First-year Admission</p>
<p>And here's Cornell:</p>
<p><a href="http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000395.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000395.pdf</a>
C.U</a>. Admissions Rate Drops by 4.2 Percent | The Cornell Daily Sun</p>
<p>Personally, including acceptance rates as any type of indicator of school quality is ridiculous if you ask me.</p>
<p>"Currently, as it stands, only 12 or so national research universities with over 3,000 students have endowments per student that are signicantly higher than Michigan's ($300,000 or more)."</p>
<p>Hawkette, UT's endowment is for the entire system. That's 9 universities and 6 health institutions. Combined, we are talking 200,000 students and 20,000 professors and researchers. The Austin campus only gets half of the total endowment, which stands at $7.5 billion. </p>
<p>Columbia's endowment per student is actually $285,000. Columbia has 25,000 students and an endowment of $7.1 billion. </p>
<p>Columbia</a> University Statistical Abstract | Endowment</p>
<p>And Caltech has fewer than 3,000 students. </p>
<p>Finally, the laws of big and small numbers do not apply to this case. Since when does more than doubling one's wealth from $3.4 billion to $7.1 billion in 4 years qualify as an example of the law of small and big numbers? Michigan's endowment has been among the three most rapidely growing over the last 5 years. </p>
<p>Hawkette, once in a while, it is ok to admit you are wrong. Some public universities are as wealthy as private elites and their future financial health is looking very bright. </p>
<p>Igellar, I was wrong about Brown. But I was right about the other schools. I am not sure when you got your figures from. Vanderbilt's endowment per student is indeed $300,000. But Columbia's endowment per student is $285,000 not $340,000 and Michigan's endowment per student is $175,000, not $145,000. Cornell's endowment per student is indeed $270,000. So those schools' endowments of $270,000-$300,000 per student aren't that much greater than Michigan's endowment of $175,000 per student. And trust me, that gap will disolve in the next 4-6 years. Michigan's endowment per student will be as large as any of its peers, while at the same time, benefiting from enoc9omies of scale and state funding.</p>
<p>27 , $172,746 , U MICHIGAN , 25
28 , $158,303 , Lehigh , 31
29 , $147,388 , J Hopkins , 14
30 , $143,152 , TEXAS A&M , 62
31 , $130,128 , Brandeis , 31
32 , $129,184 , Boston College , 35</p>
<p>thus furthermore evidence that Lehigh and Boston College are Michigan's peers... right hawkette?</p>
<p>I'm surprise that on a topic with so many responses no one has brought up the Carnegie Foundation's classification, which serve as the basis of USNWR's classifications. Carnegie does not distinguish between public and private si, in turn, neither does USNWR. Basically, USNWR doesn't want to get into the classification business or to even define the classifications. However, it is USNWR, not Carnegie, that makes the decisions about whether a school is regional or national in character. I suppose they do this because for marketing reasons it's better to have 10 #1 schools rather than 2 #1 schools.</p>
<p>This article by a researcher at the Carnegie Foundation doesn't go into the public/private issue, but does describe the national/regional definitions, or lack thereof. It at least provides a glimpse into both Carnegie and USNWR.</p>
<p>Hidden</a> in Plain View :: Inside Higher Ed :: Higher Education's Source for News, Views and Jobs</p>
<p>alex,
I am not wrong...unless you have unilaterally eliminated the laws of investments and economics. You're in denial or else you're just not very good with numbers. </p>
<p>You also continue to shade your comments in a way to suggest a closer comparison than the facts clearly indicate for Brown, Vanderbilt, Columbia and Cornell vs U Michigan. The average per capita of these four is $303,705. The per capita for U Michigan is $172,746, a difference of $130,959 or 76%.</p>
<p>Brown
(5821 undergrad + 2354 graduate)
$2,780,798,000 endowment
$340,159 Endowment per capita</p>
<p>Vanderbilt
(6532 undergrad + 5315 graduate)
$3,487,500,000 endowment
$294,378 Endowment per capita</p>
<p>Columbia
(5602 undergrad + 17,740 graduate)
$7,149,803,000 endowment
$306,306 Endowment per capita</p>
<p>Cornell
(13,510 undergrad + 6290 graduate)
$5,424,733,000 endowment
$273,976 Endowment per capita</p>
<p>U Michigan
(26,083 undergrad + 14,959 graduate)
$7,089,830,000 endowment
$172,746 Endowment per capita</p>
<p>How much money do Brown, Vandy et al get from the state? UM gets about $335,000,000. At a 5% payout rate that equals $6.7 BILLION in equivalent endowment. Plus the state provides a share of new building capital costs to the tune of about $100,000,000 per year. Another $2 Billion endowment.</p>
<p>Hawkette, you are wrong. You said state universities aren't as wealthy and that their future isn't bright. I have proven beyond any doubt that Michigan is wealthy and its financial future is very bright. There, you are wrong.</p>
<p>And I provided the links from Columbia's own wesite. They have 7,000+ undergrads and 17,000+ graduate students. Columbia's endowment per student is $285,000.</p>
<p>And as Barron's pointed out, Michigan receives over $300 million from the state annually, chargest, on average, as much tuition per student as its private peers and benefits from economies of scale like only few universities can.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it's not "sour grapes" at all, if you mean by that you think I'm grumpy about being on the losing side of this sort of US News data manipulation. I've been on faculties at both public and private schools and I've seen this sort of thing on both sides of the public-private divide; some are more successful at it than others. But just about everywhere at the elite levels of U.S. higher education, the U.S. News rankings have administrators jumping through ridiculous hoops and tying themselves in knots trying to come up with new, creative ways to "game" the factors that make up their ranking, just so they can move up a couple of notches, or sometimes just to keep from slipping back a couple of notches in the face of competition from more aggressively data-manipulating peer institutions. I just think the U.S. News "arms race" is a enormous waste of effort, a shameful waste of scarce educational resources, and an appalling distraction from what the educational enterprise ought to be about. Virtually none of the tactics I describe have anything to do with actually improving educational quality. And the fact that most of the numbers that make up the U.S. News ranking are so vulnerable to manipulation says to me that the whole ranking scheme is a sham and a real disservice to American higher education, both because it misleads applicants and their parents and worse, because it has such a distorting effect on institutional policy at so many great colleges and universities. (And if that's what you meant by "sour grapes," then yes, it's sour grapes but I stand by it).</p>
<p>The link I posted was from an April article in The New York Times.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2. SAT optional. So what. Let an institution go ahead and choose this path, but Id say its pretty clear that colleges are doing this for reasons other than USNWR rankings (Reed, Wake Forest) and says more about the nature of the student that are trying to attract.
[/quote]
Reed requires either the SAT or ACT, and prefers the SAT. 'SAT optional' usually means neither is required.</p>
<p>bclintonk: i find your analysis (post #52) very informative. so what you're saying is that with the same middle 50%, say 1350-1550, school A might have a 70-80% majority of admits at and just above 1350, and school B might have a 70-80% majority of admits at and just below 1550 while school C have the admits evenly spread out within 1350-1550, yet they all look equally competitive on paper according to USNWR rankings.</p>
<p>since schools in this numbers game have to aim at the best possible middle 50%, they can increase their middle 50% by offering, even a few dozens out of their 1,000 entering class, attractive finaid to those above 1550 to raise their middle 50% to say 1350-1570 from 1350-1550 (by rejecting a few dozens of those at or slightly above 1350).</p>
<p>for those top top elites like HYPSM, it could very well be in their best interest that they might opt to reject those above 75%percentile, even those with perfect sat scores, if and when they have too many 75%ers and by rejecting these overqualified (or rather overrepresented) students and increasing their middle 50% percentile. so when these elites claim that they're sorry to reject those (over)qualified students they actually might be referring to those above 75% percentile, and not necessarily the middle 50% and quite absolutely not the 25% percentile who are likely to include a number of legacies, atheletes, development cases and so on.</p>
<p>and that in reality these overcredentialed applicants might have to end up choosing from their second best choices. is this what the numbers game is all about? i hope not.</p>
<p>bclintonk: you seem to be of the opinion that usnwr rankings might actually be a disservice but since college applicants still need the rankings at least as the starting tool, what do you then recommend as a solution? Should there be a public drive to modify the criteria/weightings used in the rankings? or should the public (i mean students and parents) be better educated to understand the methodology, manipulations and flaws of the rankings so that they may make informed decisions. the good part of the rankings story has been quite well publicised.</p>
<p>I wish you would create another separate thread on usnwr ranking; its methodology, creteria and weightings. despite the flaws, rankings still serve lots of students/parents as a systematic starting tool in their college search.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, it's not "sour grapes" at all, if you mean by that you think I'm grumpy about being on the losing side of this sort of US News data manipulation. I've been on faculties at both public and private schools and I've seen this sort of thing on both sides of the public-private divide; some are more successful at it than others. But just about everywhere at the elite levels of U.S. higher education, the U.S. News rankings have administrators jumping through ridiculous hoops and tying themselves in knots trying to come up with new, creative ways to "game" the factors that make up their ranking, just so they can move up a couple of notches, or sometimes just to keep from slipping back a couple of notches in the face of competition from more aggressively data-manipulating peer institutions. I just think the U.S. News "arms race" is a enormous waste of effort, a shameful waste of scarce educational resources, and an appalling distraction from what the educational enterprise ought to be about. Virtually none of the tactics I describe have anything to do with actually improving educational quality. And the fact that most of the numbers that make up the U.S. News ranking are so vulnerable to manipulation says to me that the whole ranking scheme is a sham and a real disservice to American higher education, both because it misleads applicants and their parents and worse, because it has such a distorting effect on institutional policy at so many great colleges and universities. (And if that's what you meant by "sour grapes," then yes, it's sour grapes but I stand by it).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I actually look at the situation the other way, although I certainly agree with you that there is significant 'gaming' of the system that is a deadweight loss to society. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I think you also have to consider what the alternative is. I very strongly suspect that, as flawed as USNews might be, at least it draws the attention of university administrators and holds their feet to the fire to get them to improve their undergrad programs. Without that pressure, I strongly suspect that certain schools, frankly, wouldn't even bother to improve their undergrad programs at all, preferring instead to simply coast on their past reputation and brand names of their graduate programs as a cover for their relatively weaker undergrad programs. One particular school, that shall remain unnamed, immediately comes to mind whom I fear the administrators would do exactly nothing for the undergrad program were it not for the pressure of USNews. For example, when this school dropped out of the USNews top 25 entirely during one year, a great hue and cry from the alumni and students caused the administration to enact policies that were actually pretty useful to improve the undergrad program. I suspect that were it not for USNews, that would most likely not have happened at all.</p>
<p>Look, USNews is like an exam for a course. In any exam, you are going to have students who are looking to game it in order to earn the highest possible score while actually learning the least possible material. But at least the students are still pressured by the exam to study the material, even though some of that studying is not really productive (i.e. students who are more interested in studying to earn points on the exam rather than studying to actually learn the material). The truth is, without the pressure of an exam, many students would simply not even bother to study the material at all.</p>