Have you ever notice that the Academic Reputation scores in the U.S News Best Colleges ranking can be very high for several public universities although their overall ranking is much lower than other schools with less stellar reputations?
Of course, there can be good reasons for this discrepancy: larger class sizes in public universities, lower graduation rates, etc. But…honors colleges and programs within the larger institutions offset the negatives and offer their students opportunities to take advantage of the factors contributing to the strong academic reputations.
First, these are factors to consider if the state university’s academic reputation is much stronger than its overall ranking:
1. The overall rankings penalize public universities for their typically larger class sizes, but the average class size in the 50 major honors programs we track is only 21.2 students, much smaller than the average class size for the universities as a whole. Most of these honors classes are lower-division, where the preponderance of large classes is the norm. Result: the relatively poor rating the whole university might receive for class size is offset for honors students.
2. The overall rankings hit some public universities hard for having relatively low retention and graduation percentages, but freshmen retention rates in honors programs are in the 90% range and higher; meanwhile six-year grad rates for honors entrants average 89%–much higher than the average rates for the universities as a whole. Result: the lower rates for the universities as a whole are offset for honors students.
3. All public universities suffer in the overall rankings because U.S. News assigns ranking points for both the wealth of the university as a whole and for the impact that wealth has on professors’ salaries, smaller class sizes, etc. This is a double whammy in its consideration of inputs and outputs separately; only the outputs should be rated. Result: the outputs for class size (see above) are offset for honors students, and the wealth of the university as an input should not be considered in the first place.
4. For highly-qualified students interested in graduate or professional school, academic reputation and the ability to work with outstanding research faculty are big advantages. Honors students have enhanced opportunities to work with outstanding faculty members even in large research universities, many of which are likely to have strong departmental rankings in the student’s subject area. Result: honors students are not penalized for the research focus of public research universities; instead, they benefit from it.
5. Many wealthy private elites are generous in funding all, or most, need-based aid, but increasingly offer little or no merit aid. This means that families might receive all the need-based aid they “deserve” according to a federal or institutional calculation and still face annual college costs of $16,000 to $50,000. On the other hand, national scholars and other highly-qualified students can still receive significant merit aid at most public universities. Result: if a public university has an academic reputation equal to that of a wealthy private elite, an honors student could be better off financially and not suffer academically in a public honors program.
But…what if the academic reputation of the public university is lower than that of a private school under consideration? In this case, the public honors option should offer the following offsets:
1. The net cost advantage of the public university, including merit aid, probably needs to be significant.
2. It is extremely important to evaluate the specific components of the honors program to determine if it provides a major “value-added” advantage–is it, relatively, better than the university as a whole. Typically, the answer will be yes. To determine how much better, look at the academic disciplines covered by the honors program, the actual class sizes, retention and graduation rates, research opportunities, and even honors housing and perks, such as priority registration.
Honors News is a regular (not always daily) update, in brief, of recent news from honors colleges/programs and from the world of higher ed. Occasionally, a bit of opinion enters the discussion. These brief posts are by John Willingham, unless otherwise noted.
The SAT redesign has independent college consultants worried. Now, 99% of them are recommending that high school juniors take the ACT, and 71% are advising students to skip the revised SAT for at least the first go-round.
Nancy Griesemer, who writes great columns for the Washington Examiner, goes into greater detail. She and other consultants are concerned that the unknowns and increased rigor of the revised SAT could make for unpleasant surprises for the first group of students to take it.
“Despite efforts by the College Board to provide substantial advance information about the new test, counselors are uneasy about the Board’s ability to pull it all together in time for next year’s juniors,” she writes. “In fact, the vast majority of IECs surveyed (87%) indicated they were changing the advice they ordinarily give students about which college admission exams to take and when.”
One possible strategy: take the old SAT test this fall, and then the ACT in the spring. Then…in the senior year think about re-taking the tests and even tackling the revised SAT.
Honors News is a regular (not always daily) update, in brief, of recent news from honors colleges/programs and from the world of higher ed. Occasionally, a bit of opinion enters the discussion. These brief posts are by John Willingham, unless otherwise noted.
August 11, 2015–Exciting news from Rutgers New Brunswick: a new Honors College, along with its own central living/learning community, is welcoming approximately 500 “of the highest achieving students from New Jersey,” according to Dean Matt Matsuda.
“Our students come from across the undergraduate schools at Rutgers-New Brunswick– Arts and Sciences, Environmental and Biological Sciences, Engineering, Business, Pharmacy, and Fine Arts,” the Dean reports. Membership in the Honors College is a four-year experience.
The new living/learning facility, “situated at the heart of the New Brunswick campus and opening this fall,” houses all first-year students in the Honors College, “as well as administrative and advising offices, six seminar rooms, plentiful lounge and study areas for programming, and three live-in faculty apartments. We are ready to welcome our inaugural class this fall as Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, celebrates its 250th anniversary.”
Building on the success of the SAS (Arts and Sciences) Honors Program, the new Honors College “expands honors education at Rutgers-New Brunswick, by redefining interdisciplinary education. While the school-based honors programs will continue as they have in the past, the new Honors College invites students from across the liberal arts and professional schools to live and work together to tackle global issues.
“The Honors College is a community where intellectual curiosity, hands-on knowledge, diversity, collaboration, and giving back are central to its philosophy.”
August 11, 2015–Although there are few hard and fast rules regarding honors programs, honors curricula and completion requirements are, as one might think, the most important components of an honors program. Here’s why: More honors classes, and the requirement that honors students must complete 25-40 hours of credits in honors, place students in a learning environment together more frequently, and reinforce their contacts with professors and research opportunities. Lower levels of completion, while still providing the advantage of replacing many Gen Ed courses with smaller honors sections, can (but not always) lead to a student’s declining interest in honors.
Living/learning communities, clubs, honors benefits (e.g., priority registration) and volunteer activities are also vital components of honors education–but in the end what happens in the classroom, and how frequently it happens, are the most important factors in sustaining the honors experience.
Honors News is a regular (not always daily) update, in brief, of recent news from honors colleges/programs and from the world of higher ed. Occasionally, a bit of opinion enters the discussion. These brief posts are by John Willingham, unless otherwise noted.
August 10, 2015–The response to Frank Bruni’s column yesterday on the public honors option has been strong and enthusiastic, but a bit of clarification is in order.
First, the distinctions between honors colleges and honors programs are not always pronounced. Many honors programs have been around longer than honors colleges and have, for various reasons, chosen to retain their original names and structure. Among these many prominent programs are the University of Michigan LS&A Honors Program, the UT Austin Plan II Honors Program, and the UVA Echols Scholars Program. All are rated at 5.0 “mortarboards” on a scale of 5.0. They join ASU Barrett Honors College, Penn State’s Schreyer Honors College, the South Carolina Honors College, and the Kansas University Honors Program to round out the group of seven colleges/programs rated 5.0.
Our page Top Honors Programs also lists an additional 14 honors colleges and programs that received a 4.5 rating.
Second, we do not rank programs or colleges (from now on we will use the generic term “programs”) because, after attempting to do so in 2012, I realized that ordinal rankings, especially with respect to honors programs, are more likely to exhibit artificial distinctions rather than reflect any qualitative differences. That is why we “rate” with the 5 mortarboard system and do not “rank” numerically.
Honors News is a regular (not always daily) update, in brief, of recent news from honors colleges/programs and from the world of higher ed. Occasionally, a bit of opinion enters the discussion. These brief posts are by John Willingham, unless otherwise noted.
The 2015 Forbes America’s Best Colleges rankings are out, and there is a new wrinkle in the methodology: The magazine “ran a targeted student satisfaction survey on Facebook. Respondents were asked where they attended school and how satisfied they were with their experience on a scale from 1 to 5.” The result yielded 2.5% of the total score, and was incorporated into the 25% subtotal in the “Student Satisfaction” metric.
We do not know exactly what “a targeted student satisfaction survey” is, but throwing something new into a ranking system helps to sustain interest. The survey didn’t help public universities overall. The average ranking of the public universities listed in the top 100 dropped more than 14 places in just two years. Only William & Mary rose during that time. Incredibly (literally), the Penn State ranking has fallen 59 places in two years; Maryland and Washington 20 and 21 places respectively. What could have happened in only two years to create such results?
For 2014, Forbes or, rather, the very conservative Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP), which does the work for the magazine, increased the weight of the student debt factor from 17.5% to 25%. At the same time, the weight for “Academic Success” went down modestly, from 11.25% to 10%. Both of these probably hurt public universities: the debt, because state support still has not caught up with costs; the academic success because CCAP counts National Science Foundation Fellowships and Fulbright awards, many of which are won by students and faculty at public research universities.
(We have been and remain critical of the Forbes rankings, but at least they focus on outputs, however murky or dubious those may be. The do not use selectivity–an increasingly problematic U.S. News metric.)
In 2013, we wrote that the Forbes America’s Best Colleges rankings had suddenly become more friendly to public universities after several years of relegating many of them to the high three figures in the numerical rankings. In that year, 19 public universities (not counting the military academies) made it into the top 100; in 2014, that number dropped to only 14. This year 13 were among the top 100.
Although UC Berkeley, UVA, Michigan, and North Carolina all improved slightly in 2015, they are still, on average, more than 10 places below where they were only two years ago.
It is not unusual for anyone who ranks or evaluates colleges to make changes in their ranking methodologies. We have done the same for our curret edition of the Review, although we did not use numerical rankings this time around.
At least the bizarre rankings that marked the Forbes list for the first few years have mostly gone away. No longer do we see, for example, a university ranked 320th one year and rise to 168th the next. And it is good to keep in mind that the Forbes rankings lump all private and public universities and liberal arts colleges into one huge group;so a Forbes ranking of, say, 65 or 70 for a public university is a much stronger ranking than a U.S. News “national university ranking” in the same range.
Still, it is difficult to understand how some of the public universities could have dropped so far in just two or three years. The graduation rate value of 7.5% of the total, not adjusted for schools (e.g., Georgia Tech) with high numbers of engineering students, is punishing for some schools. Georgia Tech now has fallen 10 places since 2013, all the way down to 93.
Below are the Forbes rankings of public universities that were in the top 100 in 2013. The first parenthesis is the 2013 ranking, the second is the 2014 ranking, and the third is the 2015 ranking.
Editor’s Note: The following is one of our relatively rare opinion pieces.
Another presidential election year is approaching, and another presidential candidate is taking aim at the public university system in his state, and boasting of his budget cuts and alleged reforms.
This time around it’s Scott Walker of Wisconsin; in 2012 it was Rick Perry of Texas.
Opportunistic politicians and ideologues found major public universities to be an easy target for criticism and budget cuts during the great recession, and governors long opposed to the “liberalism” in higher ed embraced the opportunity to whack away at funding for research and disciplines they didn’t like.
In the aftermath of the recession, the partisan ideology driving attacks on public higher education remains strong, and in the state of Wisconsin, Scott Walker has doubled down on efforts to cut funding for the University of Wisconsin system even as other states are reinvesting in their own universities.
Rick Perry embarked on a similar crusade against the University of Texas and Texas A&M systems several years ago, only to be outwitted and ultimately defeated by staunch supporters of both systems. Like Walker, Perry sought to bring a business model to the higher education systems, and by business he meant the interests of business: sacrificing the intellectual impact of higher education to the immediate and often shortsighted “needs” of business and industry.
Productivity was the buzzword in Texas, and the biggest enemies of productivity were the disciplines that brought in little money and allegedly offered no vocational advantage to students: the humanities and social sciences.
The latest developments in Wisconsin are that the UW system now has $250 million less in the current state budget, and some safeguards protecting faculty and academic programs have been eroded. That this is happening in Wisconsin is of special concern because “The Wisconsin Idea,” enshrined in state law for more than a century, articulated a high and noble purpose for public universities.
“The legislature finds it in the public interest to provide a system of higher education…” the state statute begins, but a Walker staffer proposed deleting this opening clause and replacing it with “There is created a system of higher education…”, as if placing the public interest at the forefront of the statute somehow overlooked a more important purpose.
That more important purpose becomes clear in the next section, where the staffer wrote that the primary mission of the UW system was “to meet the state’s workforce needs,” rather than “to discover and disseminate knowledge.” The staffer then struck these final words of the section:
“Inherent in this broad mission are methods of instruction, research, extended training and public service designed to educate people and improve the human condition. Basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth.”
In the end, the proposed changes did not take hold following media scrutiny and public opposition; but the changes in the language illustrate just how far the discovery of knowledge, improving the human condition, and the search for truth have fallen in the eyes of self-serving ideologues.
This is not to say that universities, public and private, should not offer majors that have a clear vocational focus. UW Madison certainly does so, with high ranking programs in both business and engineering. The reformers would doubtless see these as ways to improve the individual’s condition economically, and thereby worth funding. But what about the individual’s sense of values, understanding of the nation’s past, appreciation of both the threats and advances of other cultures? What about research that improves health care, legal services, and education?
UW Madison now faces the loss of about 400 employees as a result of the budget cuts. The tenure protection once guaranteed by state statute has now been watered down as part of a move to make the system operate more like a corporation, with greater freedom to define and limit programs and cut faculty positions. Guess which programs will suffer? Not business, not engineering, not the hard sciences perhaps, but those pesky humanities and social sciences with all their unsettling ideas and pointed references to the lessons and values of the past.
Yes, these disciplines can wander far afield on occasion and come up with what are, or appear to be, bizarre arguments and interpretations. But here’s the thing: you never know where the most important ideas and insights will come from, and limiting the scope of higher education to vocational pursuits is far riskier than allowing scholars in all the major disciplines to pursue their research.
Ideologues are quick to urge bright students to attend elite private universities, all of which encourage and, often, lavishly fund research in all disciplines. Can you imagine Harvard without strong departments in English, history, philosophy, sociology, and psychology? Yale? Chicago? Does anyone seriously believe these schools would retain their generally deserved credibility if they were to make it their primary mission “to meet workforce needs”? They exist to challenge bright students in all major areas of inquiry. The result: leaders not only in “the workforce” but also in every other facet of life.
It is weirdly shortsighted that the governor of Wisconsin, a state without a high-profile private university, does not want the citizens of the state to have reasonable access to the highest levels of education. Like other “reformers,” he seems to operate under the assumption that there are enough elite private schools to accommodate the smartest students, even if they have to go out of state. (And, if UW Madison is significantly reduced, they will. Surely the governor can appreciate the power of a “brand” and what happens when it is lost. )
But in fact there are not enough prominent private universities to provide places for all the brightest students, and why would a governor promote policies that tend to drive these students out of his state anyway?
Thus do political opportunism and ideology lead ultimately to the worst kind of academic outcome: a brain drain.
A report by the New America Foundation, The Out of State Student Arms Race, is the subject of another post on this site, How Much Should Public Universities Spend on Merit Aid? Although we have some disagreements with the New America report, it contains interesting arguments against the excessive use of non-need-based aid by public universities along with a list of those universities that provide the highest percentages of non-need-based aid to incoming freshmen.
The report would find full agreement from this quarter if it had been produced at a time past, when public universities received most of their funding from state appropriations and could maintain lower tuition rates for all. Now, unfortunately, many public institutions are forced to use merit aid more “strategically,” sometimes as part of the recruitment of out-of-state students and the greater revenue they bring, even after merit funding. To the extent that this use of merit aid works to deny access to merit-worthy, low-income applicants in-state, we do agree with the New America Foundation.
(Please note that separate posts discuss National Merit Scholarship aid, by institution. This post address the availability of all types of merit aid.)
In any event, the list below should be helpful to some parents with FAFSA income levels that are relatively high but that may still be stretched to the limit without non-need-based aid. We are not listing all the public universities on the list, but most of the larger ones are listed. After the university name, we will list the percentage of freshmen receiving non-need-based aid, followed by the average dollar amount of that aid per student. Most of the data is from 2013-2014. Schools where at least 20% of freshmen receive at least $4,000 in average merit aid are listed in bold.
Public universities below with the highest average per capita merit aid are UT Dallas ($13,766); Alabama ($11,919); Colorado ($9,497); Vermont ($9,283); Arizona ($8,137); Alabama Birmingham ($8,020); and New Hampshire ($8,020). Please note that some schools may sponsor very high numbers of National Merit Scholars (e.g., Oklahoma), but not provide as much merit aid in other forms. Still other schools (Alabama) fund both NMS aid and other merit aid at generous levels. And then there are the public elites that fund little or no aid that is not need-based.
North Dakota–41.73% of freshmen–$1,173 per student
Truman State–40.5% of freshmen–$4,693 per student
South Carolina–39.1% of freshmen–$5,253 per student
Vermont–33.3% of freshmen–$9,283 per student
Iowa State–32.6% of freshmen–$3,049 per student
Miami Ohio–31.3% of freshmen–$8,174 per student
West Virginia–30.7% of freshmen–$2,604 per student
Ohio State–29.9% of freshmen–$6,757 per student
UT Dallas–29.8% of freshmen–$13,766 per student
Auburn–29.6% of freshmen–$5,976 per student
Montana–29.3% of freshmen–$3,250 per student
SUNY Plattsburgh–28.9% of freshmen–$6,237 per student
Clemson–27.4% of freshmen–$7,456 per student
Alabama Huntsville–27.1% of freshmen–$7,494 per student
Oklahoma State–27% of freshmen–$6,291 per student
Colorado–26.9% of freshmen–$9,497 per student
Michigan Tech–26.7% of freshmen–$5,367 per student
Troy Univ–26.5% of freshmen–$5,132 per student
Arizona State–25.7% of freshmen–$7,733 per student
Col School of Mines–25.6% of freshmen–$7,391 per student
Mississippi–25.6% of freshmen–$6,876 per student
Alabama Birmingham–24.7% of freshmen–$8,020 per student
Delaware–24.6% of freshmen–$6,074 per student
Salibury–24.5% of freshmen–$2,127 per student
South Dakota–24.5% of freshmen–$4,505 per student
Southern Utah–24.5% of freshmen–$3,863 per student
Alabama–24.4% of freshmen–$11,919 per student
Arizona–24% of freshmen–$8,137 per student
Kansas State–24% of freshmen–$4,145 per student
Mississippi State–24% of freshmen–$3,527 per student
Iowa–23% of freshmen–$4,115 per student
Oklahoma–22.7% of freshmen–$4,540 per student
Kentucky–22% of freshmen–$7,789 per student
Missouri–21.1% of freshmen–$4,763 per student
Idaho–21.1% of freshmen–$3,133 per student
Maryland–19.9% of freshmen–$6,451 per student
Michigan–17.9% of freshmen–$4,938 per student
Indiana–17.6% of freshmen–$7,671 per student
Minnesota –17.4% of freshmen–$5,875 per student
Kansas–17.4% of freshmen–$3,235 per student
Arkansas-16.3% of freshmen–$4,145 per student
LSU–15.2% of freshmen–$3,233 per student
Alaska Fairbanks–15% of freshmen–$4,306 per student
Tennessee–13.8% of freshmen–$1,571 per student
New Hampshire–13% of freshmen–$8,020 per student
UC Berkeley–13% of freshmen–$4,583 per student
Maine–12.8% of freshmen–$4,030 per student
Connecticut–12.8% of freshmen–$7,045 per student
Rutgers–12.1% of freshmen–$4,300 per student
Massachusetts–11.8% of freshmen–$4,386 per student
Nebraska–11.6% of freshmen–$5,589 per student
Illinois–10.9% of freshmen–$3,980 per student
Rhode Island–9% of freshmen–$6,354 per student
Penn State–7.8% of freshmen–$3,230 per student
Utah–7.7% of freshmen–$7,917 per student
Wisconsin–7% of freshmen–$3,989 per student
Georgia–6.9% of freshmen–$2,019 per student
Florida–5.4% of freshmen–$2,000 per student
Oregon–5.3% of freshmen–$5,207 per student
North Carolina–3.2% of freshmen–$8,393 per student
Univ at Buffalo SUNY–2.6% of freshmen–$6,030 per student
Critics claim that public universities spend far too much on merit aid at a time when the focus should be on providing more need-based assistance, but the uses of merit aid are many, as are the reasons that drive the aid decisions at individual institutions.
The main problem for leading institutions, especially, is how to balance quality, access, state interests (including revenue), and public perception. In general, the most vocal critics of merit aid believe that access should trump all the other factors.
First of all, some of the arguments in these and other reports are valid. For one thing, there is no doubt that the U.S. News rankings drive many colleges to spend money on generating better metrics, especially those related to test scores, selectivity, and student/faculty ratios. Some schools have become proficient in gaming the system.
The U.S. News methodology currently gives a combined weight of 9.25% to test scores and selection ratios. The use of the latter should be scrapped, given the increased use of the Common App and marketing geared to ramping up applications just for the sake of lowering acceptance ratios. (As for test scores, there are ways that colleges can game that metric as well.) The methodology also assigns a weight of 22.5% to multiple financial metrics that also pressure colleges to raise and spend more money.
State budget cuts and rising costs for instruction, research, and administration have also led to the need for more revenue. Just how much of the additional revenue is actually necessary for improved instruction is a matter of contention. (See for example Baumol’s Cost Disease and The Bowen Effect.) The combined effects of state disinvestment and the obsession with prestige and rankings have undoubtedly led to the intense focus on increasing revenues.
Yet after granting the critics a fair measure of credit, we come back to the four main factors that affect the allocation of merit aid, discussed below. And here’s a proposed standard for balancing the factors: If merit aid is denied to highly qualified, low-income students who are residents of the state, and goes instead to out-of-state students whose qualifications are about the same or less, then the merit aid is being used excessively for revenue purposes.
Quality–As noted elsewhere on this blog, the elite colleges and universities in this country, almost all of them private, simply do not have enough slots for the top 8-10% of students, based on test scores. Most of the highly talented students who are not accepted by elite private colleges will end up at public universities. Those public universities that allocate funds to support smaller classes and undergraduate research for talented students through honors programs, along with merit aid, are not only spending money to recruit students with higher test scores in order to enhance their prestige; they are also filling a real need by providing more slots for talented students. In addition, many are trying to keep talented students in state rather than seeing them leave, never to return. All too often, critics of public university spending ignore these needs.
Access–The relationship of merit aid to greater access for lower-income students is complex. Rankings and prestige have an impact on merit aid allocations, but that impact is not always what the critics see.
Some elite public universities (UC Berkeley, Michigan) offer higher percentages of merit aid than other public universities that are excellent but not so elite (although the average amounts of merit aid from Berkeley and Michigan are not especially large.) Why? The competition for UC Berkeley and Michigan includes many private elite schools, and sometimes even modest merit aid can be the deciding factor. Private universities such as Chicago, Northwestern, and Rice also offer significant merit aid, and do so to compete with the Ivies, Stanford, etc., who are so much in demand that they don’t have to offer non-need-based aid.
The University of Virginia and the University of North Carolina also compete effectively against private elites, but they have chosen to provide very limited merit aid.
For public universities at the next level, Washington, Illinois, UT Austin, Wisconsin, the competition is often with other publics, and they more than hold their own. Partly as a result of being in high demand regardless of aid, UT Austin has one of the highest enrollments of Pell Grant students and offers little in the way of merit aid.
But when it comes to public universities with lesser reputations than those listed above, the balance between aid for quality or aid for access may tip too far toward quality, sometimes with an eye on improving rankings and revenue. New America singles out the University of Alabama and the University of South Carolina for criticism. How much of this criticism is valid?
State Interests/Revenue–The state of South Carolina now funds only 10 percent of the cost of education at the flagship university. Moreover, the number of college-age students in the state is declining. New America criticizes the University of South Carolina for awarding too much merit aid to out-of-state students, who still end up providing more revenue out of pocket than in-state students, and also help to sustain enrollment levels.
If the university allocated most or almost all of its aid to need-based students within the state, the revenue would drop dramatically and the expense per student would rise. The university would probably be unable to support its excellent honors college; for that matter, the university would eventually be unable to serve as many students period. So even if the state legislature undervalues higher education, the university and many citizens believe it is in the interest of the state to increase the number of college graduates (and their families) over the long haul, and not diminish the university in the process.
Is the percentage of non-resident freshmen (45%) too high, and the merit aid they receive too much? To answer those questions, one would need to know (1) whether many highly qualified (but low-income) in-state students are not receiving aid because the aid is going to out-of-state students with equal or lesser qualifications; and (2) how many of talented out of state students will remain in South Carolina after graduation. To the extent that highly qualified, low-income, in-state students are losing out, then the out of state aid should be reduced.
Public Perception–Funding honors programs and offering merit aid to talented students can certainly increase the selectivity profile of a university and eventually enhance rankings and public perception. But we would draw a distinction between the aggressive gaming of the rankings and the more justifiable funding that is related to legitimate state interests. New America suggests that the extremely generous merit aid that the University of Alabama offers to talented out-of-state students is mainly to enhance rankings. But, contrary to what New America claims, the Alabama U.S. News ranking has actually fallen 13 places since 2012.
The University of Mississippi is another flagship that offers generous merit aid. What is also true is that the state of Mississippi has the second lowest percentage of college grads in the nation, and Alabama the 7th lowest. Surely these states should find ways to sustain their flagship institutions, and merit aid, for now, is one of those ways. Who knows but that some day they might join UVA, UNC Chapel Hill, UT Austin, Wisconsin and others that can go forward without so much emphasis on merit aid.
Again, we agree with New America that many universities, including some major public institutions, do use merit aid, at least in part, for purposes of moving up in college rankings and sometimes excessively for revenue purposes. But the total picture is much more complicated, resulting in one of the most difficult issues to emerge from state disinvestment in higher education.
Be sure to check out the updated post, US News National University Rankings, 2012-2019. Latest rankings. US News has changed methodology for 2019 and there are some surprises after the first 35 places or so.
As promised, we are providing a table showing the U.S. News national university rankings from 2008–2015. Listed below are the yearly rankings of 125 national universities that were included in the first tier in all the years covered. Sixty three universities are public, and 62 are private.
As a group, the private universities have had an average increase in the rankings of two places, while the public universities have had an average decline of three places, demonstrating what we have observed in the past–public universities are, in general, not on an upward trajectory in the rankings.
One reason for the phenomenon is increased “gaming” of the rankings. Some institutions, public and private, but mostly the latter, have geared their marketing and merit aid to increase the number of applicants and lower their acceptance rates accordingly. This makes them more “selective” and helps to improve their rankings. Northeastern University, for example, has risen an astonishing 54 places in the rankings since 2008 and is now ranked higher than Washington, Penn State, UT Austin, Wisconsin, Tulane, Florida, Pepperdine, George Washington, Maryland, Pitt, and many others. It is now tied with Illinois, UC Irvine, and RPI. How likely is it that in the space of eight years Northeastern has really improved from 96th to 42nd?
The U.S. News rankings not only over-emphasize the metrics related to a university’s financial resources but also, especially in the last five years or so, reward selectivity when, in fact, the results of the selectivity are already considered. Why should Stanford be rewarded for having an acceptance rate of 5% and be rewarded for having high graduation and retention rates, both of which are largely the result of selectivity. Using test scores as a factor in predicting what grad rates should be is fine, as is rewarding or penalizing schools for exceeding or not meeting such predictions. But the high scores themselves and the low acceptance percentages merely duplicate what is more properly measured by outcomes.
We will have more to say on these issues in the future. But for now, here are the historical rankings, the average of each school across eight years, and the increase or decline of each school from 2008 to the present. The universities are listed in order of their average ranking across the years.
The recent announcement of the 2015 Truman Scholars reveals why the prestigious awards to rising college seniors are the most fairly distributed of all the major scholarships. Of the 58 winners in 2015, 26 are from public institutions; 19 are from private research universities; 11 are from private liberal arts colleges; and two are students at a service academy.
Eight schools had two winners each: Brown, Middlebury, Montana State, the Naval Academy, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Yale. Montana State has become a notable producer of scholarship winners, especially Goldwater awards for outstanding undergrads in the STEM disciplines.
According to the Truman Foundation, each new scholar “receives up to $30,000 for graduate study. Scholars also receive priority admission and supplemental financial aid at some premier graduate institutions, leadership training, career and graduate school counseling, and special internship opportunities within the federal government. Recipients must be U.S. citizens, have outstanding leadership potential and communication skills, be academically excellent, and be committed to careers in government or the non-profit sector.”
Winners from the public universities we review are listed below:
Frank Smith Arizona State University
Frank is a junior studying Public Service and Public Policy with a concentration in Urban and Metropolitan Studies. He was elected the youngest student body president at ASU, the largest public higher education institution in the nation which educates more than 82,000 students, with an unusual two terms. Overcoming adversity as a product of the foster care system, he has found a passion for improving outcomes of foster youth. Frank played an iatrical role in the passage of Arizona Senate Bill 1208-Foster Care Tuition Waiver, and is currently working to expand it to allow more students to reap its benefits.
John Grant Addison University of Arkansas
Grant is currently majoring in History and Political Science with minors in Theatre and Medieval and Renaissance Studies. He intends to pursue graduate degree programs in Law and Public Policy. Grant is involved in campus and community service projects as a director on the Student Alumni Board at the University of Arkansas, along with being a member of the campus College Republicans, Distinguished Lecturers Committee, and Razorback Marching Band. His interest in education policy and reform have led him to working as an undergraduate researcher at UA’s Department of Education Reform, as well as being a policy research assistant for a member of the Education Committee within the Arkansas State Legislature.
Russell Bogue University of Virginia
Russell is majoring in the Politics Honors program at the University of Virginia, which gives him the opportunity to engage with seminal works of political theory and international relations in a small classroom setting with some of the best faculty in the department. He couples his study of politics with Chinese language studies, and he has spent the last two summers studying abroad or doing research in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Outside of the classroom, Russell serves as a co-founder and Editor-in-Chief of his university’s first undergraduate journal of American politics and political theory, and he also served as an Opinion Editor for The Cavalier Daily and as a student lecturer in constitutional law. He currently works for the Honor Committee, plays for the university squash team, conducts research in public choice, and helps to lead a Bible study through Reformed University Fellowship. He plans on a career in government and academia working on political reform in China.
Daniel Hubbard Florida State University
Daniel is pursuing a double major in Psychology and Sociology, with an interest in advocating for veteran and active duty military personnel through research. As a former United States Army medic, Daniel has worked with these populations in several settings including Fort Drum, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and Afghanistan. Daniel is an active member of the Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program working with a research lab studying suicide and he also participates in the Florida State University Community Ambassador Program. He is completing an Honors thesis that will examine factors specific to military suicide and is volunteering for a nonprofit law firm that assists underserved populations including veterans with legal needs. Daniel hopes to contribute to the collective effort of ameliorating the recent and drastic increase in military suicide. After graduating from Florida State University, he will pursue a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology with a program that aligns well with his interest in military mental health issues.
Phoenix Rice-Johnson University of Wisconsin-Madison
A student activist originally from Hawaii, Phoenix is an honors student pursuing majors in Political Science and International Studies with a Minor in South Asian Studies. Phoenix serves as the Vice-Chair of the College Democrats of Wisconsin, the Public Defender of her student government, and the Democratic Leadership Institute Coordinator for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. Growing up in Hawaii, Phoenix became passionate about ways to involve historically marginalized communities in the electoral process through civic education programs and more inclusive electoral policy. Phoenix intends to pursue a joint degree and to eventually work as an advocate for a more equitable and inclusive electoral system.
Cristian Nuno University of Illinois-Chicago
Cristian is a third-year undergraduate student. He is a B.A. dual-degree candidate for both Economics and Urban & Public Affairs. Academically, Cristian is working his way towards a master degree in Public Policy, with a focus on public-private partnerships, municipal finance and urban policy. Professionally, he is striving for a career that would allow him to increase the well-being of many citizens, cities, and regions through various policy and community initiatives.
Jeffrey Ding University of Iowa
Born in Shanghai and raised in Iowa City, Jeffrey is dedicated to building sustainable relationships among people from different places and between humans and the environment. A junior currently serving as the Vice-President of the University of Iowa Student Government, he majors in political science, economics, and Chinese. Jeffrey promotes educational exchanges between the U.S. and China through his role as a campus ambassador for the 100K Strong Foundation, and is the campus Boren Scholarship nominee for a yearlong study abroad program at Peking University. Named an Udall Scholarship honorable mention for his commitment to environmental issues, he established an annual $10,000 student-managed Green Initiatives Fund and continues to advocate for a citywide apartment recycling mandate. After past experience as an intern at Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, he will participate in the United States Foreign Service Internship Program in the summer of 2015.
Ashlie Koehn University of Kansas
Ashlie is triple majoring in Economics, International Studies, and Environmental Studies while serving as a Staff Sergeant in the Kansas Air National Guard. Currently studying Russian and economics in the Kyrgyz Republic, her goal is to gain international experience and a strong economic background to advance the global effort against climate change. After graduation, she plans to pursue a Master of Science in Environmental Economics. Alongside work and studies, Ashlie is a runner and mandolin player.
Amanda Allen University of Louisville
Amanda is a Political science and Communication major. She serves as the Executive Director of the Engage Lead Serve Board, which oversees many student service initiatives and leadership programs at University of Louisville. As Executive Director, Amanda works with campus and community partners to not only assist the community, but to challenge students to be conscientious and active citizens through service leadership. Amanda also volunteers as a mentor at Shawnee High School. Upon completion of her Bachelor’s degree, Amanda plans to pursue a joint Master’s in Education and a Juris Doctorate to enhance equity in public education in the United States.
Michael Beyer Louisiana State University
Michael is pursuing an undergraduate degree in Political Science, as well as a Louisiana Service and Leadership Scholar, which aims to prepare LSU Honors College students for public service, social justice and leadership roles in Louisiana. He has worked as a Research and Communications Assistant at Louisiana Progress. He has also served as the Research and Policy Co-Coordinator for Equality Louisiana, where he researched initiatives and legislation related to LGBT issues. In 2014 and 2015, he helped co-organize the Louisiana Queer Conference, and this past summer he interned in the Public Policy Department with the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in Washington, D.C. He plans to pursue a career that focuses on increasing health care access for LGBT people.
Jamie Aron Mississippi State University
Jamie is majoring in Political Science and Mathematics and she is a Presidential Endowed Scholar and a member of the Shackouls Honors College. Jamie is the founder and director of WE Lead (Women Empowered Leadership Conference) and serves as the Undergraduate Representative on the President’s Commission on the Status of Women. Jamie was one of three US women chosen to intern at the Andi Leadership Institute in D.C. last summer where she discussed conflict resolution and peace negotiations. She is also active in the Student Association, serving as Director of Community and Governmental Relations. Her post graduate goals include receiving a masters and doctorate in International Relations in order to work for international governing bodies, such as the United Nations.
Emily Waggoner University of Missouri
Emily is a Political Science major pursuing minors in Women’s & Gender Studies and Leadership & Public Service. A political leader on campus and off, Emily served two years as President of the Mizzou College Democrats, worked in both the Missouri State House and Senate and served as the Deputy Director of Targeting for the Missouri Democratic Party during the 2014 campaign cycle. Emily’s passion for politics stems from her deep-seated desire to improve access to quality health services for all residents in her home state, particularly those struggling with mental illness. After graduating, Emily intends to pursue a graduate degree in health policy to position herself to effect change in the Missouri public health system.
Alexander Paterson Montana State University-Bozeman
Alexander is a junior in his university’s Honors College majoring in Economics with a minor in Mathematics. Alexander is actively involved in Montana’s LGBTQ advocacy community serving as President of Montana State University’s Queer Straight Alliance and as a canvassing volunteer for Forward Montana. On campus he is an Opinion Writer for the Exponent student newspaper, Treasurer of Engineers Without Borders, Treasurer of the International Business Club, and a member of the LGBTQA Advisory Board. In his free time, you can find him dancing, eating bagels, or reading. Alexander intends on pursuing a career in public policy focusing on LGBT human rights.
Ann Himes University of Nebraska
Ann is a proud Nebraskan, studying Russian, Global Studies, and History with minors in Spanish, English, Political Science, Women’s and Gender Studies, and Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. She has been inspired by the many strong women in her life to pursue a career in public service with special attention to women’s issues domestically and globally. Ann intends to pursue a law degree, ultimately using law for public advocacy to further progressive social causes, especially those pertaining to women and children. On campus, she has worked to combat prejudice and intolerance through the formation of a new student organization dedicated to diversity appreciation and cultural literacy. In the community, Ann has interned in the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature and at a local non-profit dedicated to social justice. In her free time, Ann enjoys rock climbing, distance running, and practicing yoga.
Daniel Waqar University of Nevada-Las Vegas
Daniel is a junior in his university’s Honors College majoring in History and with minors in Global Entrepreneurship and Public Policy in the Brookings Institute’s Mountain West studies program. Daniel advocates for students’ rights before the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents and the Nevada Legislature as the Director of Nevada Legislative Affairs and Public Relations, and pioneered the creation of the inaugural 2015 Joint Vision of UNLV Student Government for 23,000 students. He is currently studying abroad in Haifa, Israel, at the University of Haifa, with dual emphases in Peace and Conflict Studies and Arabic Culture and Civilization. While in Haifa, he leads volunteer projects as a Presidential Merit Ambassador at Yad Ezer LaHaver, a day center for the elderly and Holocaust survivors. Daniel will be working with leading Israeli political scientists in Haifa to research Israeli land settlements in post-1967 borders within the context of renewed “final status” negotiations.
Jacob Levin CUNY Brooklyn College
Jake is a Macaulay Honors College student studying political science and philosophy. He is passionate about political participation, volunteerism, and the creation of safe and nurturing spaces for students, artists, and youth. To empower CUNY students and provide a platform for the spreading and sharing of ideas, Jake founded TEDxCUNY, New York City’s first public university TEDx conference. He has worked for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, the New York City Mayor’s Office of Veterans Affairs, and Jazz at Lincoln Center, and serves on Lincoln Center’s Student Advisory Council. A camp counselor for the last 5 years, he also cares deeply about youth leadership and development. Jake hopes to pursue a law degree to advocate for veterans and other underrepresented groups.
David Danesh Ohio State University
David is majoring in Microbiology with a minor in Global Public Health. Passionate about solving the big issues in dental public health in Ohio and the US, he intends to attend dental school and then pursue his MPH and pediatric dentistry residency training. He hopes to combine his experience serving in national leadership at the American Student Dental Association and conducting public health research to improve oral health policy to address barriers in access to oral health care. His clinical and public health training will allow David to serve as a public health dentist in underserved areas in Ohio through the National Health Service Corps, then transition to serve as the State Dental Director at the Ohio Department of Health.
Cara Thuringer Montana State University – Bozeman
Cara is facinated by the implications of climate change on a global scale. Ever since an elementary school class project on the endangered black-footed ferret, Cara has maintained an interest in conservation and the environment. Through her research in Bolivia, Morocco, South Africa, and Vietnam, her interests have evolved into investigating how resource scarcities contribute to violent conflict and how climate change will exacerbate these situations. Using photography as a medium for communication, she documents environmental conflicts, both domestically and internationally. In the future, Cara hopes to combine her passion for the environment with photography to promote better resource management globally and reduce violent conflict. Cara’s role models include: Senator Paul Wellstone, Senator Tom Udall, and Bryan Schutmaat. In her free time, Cara is usually backpacking, running, knitting, or building bicycles.
Kathleen Wilson University of Georgia
Kathleen studies economics, international affairs, and Arabic. Through NGO and government internships, including work with the U.S. Department of State and the Feminist Majority Foundation, Kathleen has developed a passion for gender equity and women’s empowerment. On campus, she founded the Women’s Outreach and Resource Coalition and has advocated for the establishment of women’s center at her university. Kathleen hopes to obtain a joint Master’s in Middle Eastern Studies and Master’s in Public Policy, with a concentration in international development. These degrees will help her pursue a career at the Department of State, where she will formulate policies to extend educational and economic opportunities to women in the Middle East and North Africa.
Erin Dugan University of Delaware
Erin is majoring in public policy with minors in economics and public health. Her primary focus is on the social determinants of health, specifically the impacts of socioeconomic status and race on health outcomes. She has served as an intern in Governor Jack Markell’s Office of Federal Affairs in Washington, D.C.; The Wellness Plan Medical Centers in Detroit, Michigan; and Alliance for a Better Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah. On campus, she is the Operations Coordinator for University of Delaware Alternative Breaks, a teaching assistant, Writing Fellow, and self-proclaimed “witty” blogger. She hopes to work on health policy at the federal level after obtaining her MPH and MPP.
Lia Cattaneo University of Virginia
A Civil & Environmental Engineering and Environmental Sciences double major, Lia has worked to build a community around sustainability at the University of Virginia (UVA). She loves creating spaces in which students can accomplish ambitious goals, meet their best friends, and grow into leaders empowered to create change. She is also involved in a number of research projects, serves on the Board of Directors of UVA’s student volunteer center, is the president of the Club Figure Skating Team, and is active in the Jewish community. Lia’s goal is to use science and policy to take action on climate change. After graduation, she hopes to work in the climate and energy policy field.
Elizabeth Doyle University of Wisconsin-Madison
Elizabeth has had a passion for justice and equity from a young age. Dreams of making an impact on the lives of others and advocating for those without a voice came to fruition through her involvement in community organizing. The experience she gained through volunteering to further health, education, and political campaigns equipped her with the skills to be that advocate. Elizabeth lives in Verona, Wisconsin, with her partner, Thomas, and daughter, Zoe, where she serves as City Council President. She was elected to this position unanimously by her colleagues halfway through her first term as Alderperson making her the first woman in leadership in Verona’s history.
