Schools with Record of High Commitment to Faculty & Financial Resources

College Search & Selection
1

<p>In a difficult economy, students/families all across the country are affected in many ways, including in their consideration of various destinations for their college years. High school seniors will still be attending colleges in the fall of 2009, likely at a record rate, but I'm sure that nearly all will want to get the most value for their tuition dollars in terms of their access to professorial staff and college services. </p>

<p>One way to assess that value is to consider USNWR's metrics for Faculty Resources and Financial Resources (see definitions below). These datapoints potentially indicate schools that have a commitment to an intimate undergraduate academic environment and a historical commitment to spend university dollars on various student services. </p>

<p>It is interesting to note that a large number of the schools which score well in this comparison have also been recognized by USNWR for their excellent classroom teaching. I would contend that, now more than ever, the student should care tremendously about the classroom experience and prioritize getting their money's worth in instruction and services from the college's faculty and staff. </p>

<p>While this measurement is far too simplistic to judge alone a college's ability to deliver a quality and supportive environment, it may help some to evaluate this in conjunction with their other research as they compare various colleges and what the undergraduate environments will be like at these colleges in the years ahead. </p>

<p>Rank , Combined Score , School ( USNWR Faculty Resources Rank , USNWR Financial Resources Rank ) , </p>

<p>1 , 6 , Caltech ( 5 , 1 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
2 , 8 , Harvard ( 1 , 7 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
3 , 11 , U Penn ( 2 , 9 )<br>
3 , 11 , U Chicago ( 4 , 7 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
5 , 12 , Yale ( 10 , 2 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
6 , 14 , Wash U ( 9 , 5 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
7 , 16 , Duke ( 5 , 11 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
8 , 17 , Princeton ( 3 , 14 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
9 , 18 , Northwestern ( 5 , 13 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
10 , 21 , MIT ( 18 , 3 )<br>
11 , 22 , Stanford ( 12 , 10 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
12 , 24 , Columbia ( 8 , 16 )<br>
12 , 24 , Johns Hopkins ( 21 , 3 )<br>
14 , 26 , Dartmouth ( 15 , 11 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
14 , 26 , Vanderbilt ( 12 , 14 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
16 , 28 , Emory ( 11 , 17 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
17 , 33 , Cornell ( 16 , 17 )<br>
18 , 37 , Rice ( 14 , 23 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
19 , 41 , Carnegie Mellon ( 18 , 23 )<br>
20 , 41 , Wake Forest ( 35 , 6 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
21 , 42 , Brown ( 17 , 25 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
21 , 42 , Yeshiva ( 23 , 19 )<br>
23 , 53 , Tufts ( 22 , 31 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
24 , 54 , U Rochester ( 35 , 19 )<br>
24 , 54 , Case Western ( 33 , 21 )<br>
26 , 60 , Notre Dame ( 20 , 40 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
27 , 62 , NYU ( 24 , 38 )<br>
28 , 63 , USC ( 25 , 38 )<br>
29 , 68 , UCLA ( 42 , 26 )<br>
30 , 77 , UC Berkeley ( 33 , 44 )<br>
30 , 77 , Georgetown ( 40 , 37 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
30 , 77 , Brandeis ( 27 , 50 )<br>
33 , 80 , Tulane ( 27 , 53 )<br>
34 , 81 , U North Carolina ( 50 , 31 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
35 , 85 , Rensselaer ( 42 , 43 )<br>
36 , 90 , Lehigh ( 40 , 50 )<br>
37 , 98 , U Virginia ( 35 , 63 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
38 , 99 , UC Irvine ( 44 , 55 )<br>
39 , 107 , U Michigan ( 72 , 35 )<br>
40 , 112 , Georgia Tech ( 65 , 47 )<br>
41 , 118 , UCSD ( 90 , 28 )<br>
42 , 122 , Boston Coll ( 52 , 70 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
42 , 122 , U Wisconsin ( 72 , 50 )<br>
44 , 124 , UC Santa Barbara ( 30 , 94 )<br>
45 , 131 , UC Davis ( 100 , 31 )<br>
46 , 144 , U Illinois ( 81 , 63 )<br>
47 , 155 , W&M ( 44 , 111 ) , Undergrad Teaching Excellence
48 , 158 , U Washington ( 129 , 29 )<br>
49 , 173 , U Florida ( 129 , 44 )<br>
50 , 201 , U Texas ( 107 , 94 )<br>
51 , 214 , Penn State ( 149 , 65 ) </p>

<p>Faculty resources (20 percent). Research shows that the more satisfied students are about their contact with professors, the more they will learn and the more likely it is they will graduate. We use six factors from the 2007-08 academic year to assess a school's commitment to instruction. Class size has two components: the proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students (30 percent of the faculty resources score) and the proportion with 50 or more students (10 percent of the score). In our model, a school benefits more for having a large proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students and a small proportion of large classes. Faculty salary (35 percent) is the average faculty pay, plus benefits, during the 2006-07 and 2007-08 academic years, adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living (using indexes from the consulting firm Runzheimer International). We also weigh the proportion of professors with the highest degree in their fields (15 percent), the student-faculty ratio (5 percent), and the proportion of faculty who are full time (5 percent).</p>

<p>Financial resources (10 percent). Generous per-student spending indicates that a college can offer a wide variety of programs and services. U.S. News measures financial resources by using the average spending per student on instruction, research, student services, and related educational expenditures in the 2006 and 2007 fiscal years. Spending on sports, dorms, and hospitals doesn't count, only the part of a school's budget that goes toward educating students.</p>

2

<p>Hi Hawkette :)<br>
Welcome back.</p>

<p>Note that USNWR Financial Resources ranking is flawed. It includes spending for all students, including graduate students. Campuses with medical schools are favored in this ranking.</p>

3

<p>Of course you mention this because Cal doesn’t have a medical school. However, it is a point well taken. :-)</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>But! Don’t forget that UCSF is Cal’s de facto medical school…</p>

5

<p>Hehe CayugaRed2005. Touche. :-)</p>

6

<p>Um, Princeton, MIT, Rice, CMU and Notre Dame are all pretty high up there for schools that doesn’t have med schools, mm? In fact, Princeton, Rice and Notre Dame don’t even offer a lot of graduate programs but are ranked far higher than the large research universities that have extensive graduate programs and med schools like U of M, U of I, UCSD and UW. So I’m pretty sure the USNWR financial resources rankings didn’t have too big of an impact in that regard.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>Considering Princeton is widely regarded as the richest school in the country, but only 14th for ‘financial resources’, I would say something is amiss.</p>

8

<p>U of Texas (#50) is the richest public school and has 4 medical schools.</p>

9

<p>Many med schools don’t directly pay their faculty much if anything. They pay them through a split of patient fees where they can earn high six figures and more. I have no idea how they would account for this in IPEDS.</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>Not true: Hopkins medical school is the leading recipient of NIH and NSF research funding barely makes the top 10…</p>

<p>Hopkins med school professors and researchers avg salary are at the 25 percentile of their peer group, yet they somehow are able to retain some of the best specialist and research minds in medicine. I guess grant money constitutes a huge portion of their salary income as well…</p>

<p>How does that explain Caltech? JPL is to blame :-P</p>

11

<p>Financial resources (or faculty resources) ranking, I have been told, is calculated in part by considering the wealth of the relative to the cost of living in its surrounding area. This is why Penn and Chicago score so well–they’re in neighborhoods with low real estate values. Lower-ranked Stanford has more money than both of these schools put together, but the cost of living in posh Palo Alto is astronomical in comparison.</p>

12

<p>Just looking at the UCs tells me that the ranking favors campuses heavily involved in medical research.</p>

<p>UCLA - medical school: #26
UCSD - medical school: #28
UC Davis - medical school: #31</p>

<p>UC Berkeley - no medical school: #44
UCSB - no medical school: #94</p>

<p>

I believe USNWR is only looking at the UT-Austin campus. It does not have a medical school and is ranked #94</p>

<p>

Johns Hopkins is rated #3 in financial resources rank. This is because of the medical school research as well as the Applied Physics Laboratory.</p>

<p>Cal should include funding for its Lawrence Berkeley lab, Lawrence Livermore lab and Los Alamos lab…:rolleyes:</p>

13

<p>Let’s just be clear about what these U.S. News indices are measuring. Per U.S. New itself:</p>

<p>

[/quote]
Faculty resources (20 percent). Research shows that the more satisfied students are about their contact with professors, the more they will learn and the more likely it is they will graduate. We use six factors from the 2007-08 academic year to assess a school’s commitment to instruction. Class size has two components: the proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students (30 percent of the faculty resources score) and the proportion with 50 or more students (10 percent of the score). In our model, a school benefits more for having a large proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students and a small proportion of large classes. Faculty salary (35 percent) is the average faculty pay, plus benefits, during the 2006-07 and 2007-08 academic years, adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living (using indexes from the consulting firm Runzheimer International). We also weigh the proportion of professors with the highest degree in their fields (15 percent), the student-faculty ratio (5 percent), and the proportion of faculty who are full time (5 percent).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Among the various metrics that go into “faculty resources,” student/faculty ration and class size are definitely relevant to the quality of the student’s experience. Other measures are more dubious. For example, it’s not at all clear that students benefit from the fact that a school pays above-market faculty salaries; on the one hand it might help the school attract and retain top faculty, on the other hand it might mean the school is generously rewarding a fat and unproductive faculty at the students’ expense. Moreover, a highly paid faculty will in most cases be a more senior (= older) faculty and colleges and universities typically tie faculty pay closely to seniority; often a healthier mix will include a lot of younger, more energetic people in the early or middle years—typically the most productive years—of their careers. </p>

<p>Also, faculty pay tends to vary by discipline; business, law, and medical faculty earn significantly more than those in the liberal arts; and within the liberal arts, top scientists command higher salaries than top people in the humanities and socail sciences. Consequently a school tilted more toward the humanities and social sciences may pay lower total and average salaries than a school heavy on science, engineering, and business, even though within their respective discplines the two school’s faculties are equally distinguished. </p>

<p>Finally, it is generally true that average salaries at LACs—the schools generally most noted for their attention to undergraduate education—are lower than those at research universities, partly due to the aforementioned disciplinary biases, but also because faculty at research universities devote more of their time to research and less to teaching, and in many cases are able to haul in big research grants that may a substantial fraction of their salaries. To the extent higher faculty salaries reflect a higher level of research effort and success in securing outside research grants, then, higher faculty salaries might actually be inversely related to the availability of faculty to students and to the attentiveness of faculty to teaching and mentoring of undergraduates. So I’d be extremely cautious about using faculty salaries as an indication of what undergraduates are getting for their money.
And:</p>

<p>

[/quote]
Financial resources (10 percent). Generous per-student spending indicates that a college can offer a wide variety of programs and services. U.S. News measures financial resources by using the average spending per student on instruction, research, student services, and related educational expenditures in the 2006 and 2007 fiscal years. Spending on sports, dorms, and hospitals doesn’t count, only the part of a school’s budget that goes toward educating students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, you want to be careful about this figure because it rolls research spending into the per-student expenditure calculation. Research spending may or may not benefit undergraduates. It depends on whether the undergraduates get opportunities to participate in the research, and to learn directly from the faculty who are engaged in cutting-edge research. And again, research expenditures are going to vary widely by field. A school with state-of-the-art physics labs is going to have an enormous per-student expenditure, but that’s utterly irrelevant to the undergraduate majoring in philosophy, linguistics, or medieval literature. Finally, per-student spending could just as easily reflect a high level of bloat and inefficiency as anything of benefit to students. It’s a lot like the old “cost-plus” Pentagon contracting formula that resulted in the U.S. military paying $900 for a toilet seat some years back; if we assume that the highest cost per unit of production always reflects the best product, we’ll probably end up with bloated production costs AND shoddy products, as the producers will lack any incentive to run a lean and efficient operation. That’s not in the students’ interests, and it’s certainly not in the interests of their parents who are paying the bills.</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>Please stop making this mythical claim.</p>

15

<p>Hoedown,
The quality of undergraduate teaching is a big problem at many colleges. For many students, college faculty can be the biggest travesty of the college experience. </p>

<p>Students arrive at ABC College with open minds ready to be challenged and shaped by some of America’s top minds. Sometimes, their dreams are fulfilled. But too many times they are not and these students will often experience large classes led by professors more concerned with their research than their students and supported by TAs who can’t speak English worth a lick. </p>

<p>For one example of an unhappy student complaining about the quality of classroom teaching, consider this post from a thread that is now running in the Parents forum:</p>

<p>“My professor speaks very poor english. I have a very hard time following what he is saying sometimes. He makes up words, and his spelling and grammar are interesting, to say the least. My homework average is something like a 95% right now, but my exam grade was poor. Not because I didn’t know the material, but because I didn’t understand his questions and their wording. They were all awkward, and when he changes terms from the books terms to “his” terms I get confused…Also, when I asked him to explain to me why I got one of the questions wrong he told me we had spent enough time on that topic and he wasn’t going to talk about it anymore.”</p>

<p>I’d laugh if it wasn’t so sad…and such a rip-off of the student. </p>

<p>If anything, CC needs more references to schools that have an unusually high commitment to undergraduate teaching.</p>

16

<p>hey guys, can we ban this old lady? that undergraduate teaching excellence thing was a flawed random survey conducted some 15 years ago, which is why they stopped doing it, but she just keeps on ■■■■■■■■ it and ■■■■■■■■ it like she designed the survey.</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>I wonder what is the difference between a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) and a Federally funded research and development center (FFRDC)?</p>

<p>[University</a> Affiliated Research Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Affiliated_Research_Center]University”>University Affiliated Research Center - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>[List</a> of federally funded research and development centers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_funded_research_and_development_center]List”>Federally funded research and development centers - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>The only difference I see is FFRDC like Caltech operates and administers Jet Propulsion Lab which is owned by the government (NASA), whereas UARC like JHU Applied Physics Lab operates facilities which it owns itself, employs it’s own Hopkins employees, operating cost are on JHU’s balance sheet, and non academic research arm of the university.</p>

<p>I really do not know the difference lol… UARC are considered within the University, FFRDC are not considered integrated within a university beyond superficial oversight and management…</p>

<p>For example, Director of APL, Richard Roca has the same status as Deans of other academic divisions of Hopkins. He was even included in a picture with former President Brody, former Provost Johnson, and all nine Deans of medicine, education, business, etc… which I thought was pretty cool.</p>

18

<p>Hawkette’s “undergrad teaching excellence” things are plain false. haha. Arguably, all of those schools provide EXCELLENT undergrad teaching to their students. Either way, if she really is going to exclude schools like Columbia and JHU, she should get rid of Harvard as well. after all, it focuses mostly on grad students.</p>

19

<p>Glad I wasn’t the only one with a big question mark over his head evertime this apocryphal “undergrad teaching excellence” canard pops up.</p>

20

<p>Can you please tell me where did you get these rankings? I have looked at the us college ranking for national universities and the numbers are different from what you list in the first column.</p>