<p>UI–Top 20 in US
UVa Down there somewhere</p>
<p>[ARWU</a> 2010](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp)</p>
<p>Some reasons from UVa internal study</p>
<p>"A Mixed Standing in the Rankings. While UVA is ranked number 24 by U.S. News &
World Report (USNRW)3, mostly due to its outstanding undergraduate program, UVA
ranks only number 47 for FY 2005 in the key research indicator, namely the NSF ranking
of federal research expenditures4, and does not rank in the top 100 on the Academic
Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) 2006.5 If one looks at the important leading
American universities, it is exceptional that UVA ranks so highly for its undergraduate
program and so modestly as a research university.
The reason for this dichotomy between education and research attainment seems to be the
fact that most science and engineering departments at UVA have remained static or have
actually decreased in faculty size since 1990. We are told that this may have been due to
wrong judgments, to State funding crises and/or bias of some earlier administrators in
favor of humanities rather than science and engineering.
Whatever the circumstances that gave rise to this situation, in the period of the 1990’s to
the present government funding of academic research grew from about $11 billion to $22
billion in constant 2000 dollars. Most leading universities took advantage of the
extraordinary funding opportunities at NSF, NIH, DOE, NASA and other agencies over
this period, enabling significant growth in university income, increasing faculty sizes in
the science, engineering, and medical fields and allowing laboratories to be built with
borrowed funds and amortized from federal overhead payments. Today and in the
foreseeable future, government funding is likely to increase at a much slower rate.</p>
<p>Recovering from Stagnation: Unless the science departments of CLAS achieve
significantly improved rankings, UVA cannot realize its goal of attaining national
standing as a research university. Some of the issues discussed as university-wide at the
end of this report have special relevance to CLAS.
The recent period of reduced and flat budgets and hiring freezes hurt the science
departments at UVA, some more than others. In several cases, departments feel they are
“playing catch-up” and request the resources and faculty lines to regain the sizes they
previously had. We are persuaded that in all cases, there are good strategic arguments
being made based on new scientific directions and current strengths to justify requests for
additional positions. Likewise, departments that fared better during the period of extreme
fiscal constraint also see faculty growth as being essential to retaining or improving their
current national rankings. In both categories, growth in research-active faculty is being
requested. Such growth, if adequate in number, funded and managed well, is probably
the single most important step that can be taken to improve the research standing of
UVA’s CLAS science departments.</p>
<p>Overcoming a History of Disappointment: Without knowing if the faculty comments are
justified or not, The Washington Advisory Group needs to report a widespread sense of
malaise and frustration in the science faculty within CLAS. It derives from the feeling
that UVA’s low standing as a ranking research university is due to a long history of
comparatively low priority for science in the allocation of internal funds.
Various strategic planning efforts in the recent past (and underway now) have not helped
the situation. Stated goals from previous planning efforts, including projected hiring and
fund raising plans, failed to materialize as advertised, leaving departments frustrated and
faculty unwilling to contribute more time to efforts perceived as being unable to achieve
tangible results that benefit their department or their work.</p>
<p>Issue: Departments such as Physics, Math, and Biology have remained
static or have not grown in faculty size since 1990 over a period of time
when federal research awards increased. Most leading universities took
advantage of funding opportunities at NSF, NIH, DOE, NASA and other
agencies over this period. This enabled growth in faculty size in leading
competing universities. Laboratories were built with borrowed funds and
amortized from federal overhead payments. Now UVA has to play catchup,
when government funding is relatively static.
Recommendation: This was a major error in judgment. The Washington
Advisory Group supports UVA’s decision to make the necessary
investments to become a respectable research university. This will involve
a major initiative (described elsewhere) of recruiting research competent
faculty. An important goal is to increase the size of these departments to
the median level of those top 20 or so departments in the country of
comparable size to UVA.
Issue: The relatively low rankings of the very basic disciplines of
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics in CLAS contribute
significantly to the modest current image of UVA as a research university.
Almost every distinguished research university in the country ranks well
in these basic fields. Whatever the historic reasons, UVA cannot achieve
its new goals unless this is corrected.
Recommendation: Develop a plan specific for each of these basic
departments to improve its comparative ranking.</p>