TheCenter The Top American Research Universities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In the case of engineering, as Figure 4 (see page18) illustrates, the pattern is similar to the one formedicine but not as pronounced. Almost all of theinstitutions included here have an engineering school,and engineering expenditures represent only just over17% of all federal research expenditures on average.The majority of institutions appear to cluster at thelower end of this distribution.Deconstructing the ResearchUniversity and the Search forNumber OneThis demonstration highlights a number of characteristicsof university research competition. The mostobvious is that highly competitive research-orientedmedical schools contribute substantially to the successof many American research campuses. At the sametime, simple formulations about the impact of medicalinstitutions on academic research campuses likelywill not help. Instead, we need a careful examinationof the characteristics of the individual campusesbefore knowing how a medical enterprise – or the absenceof a medical enterprise – affects the institution’scompetitiveness in gaining a significant market shareof federal research. Some institutions – notably MIT– have been exceptionally effective at pursuing federalfunding. Others, whose medical schools do not pursueresearch effectively, may experience no significantresearch benefit.We also need to recognize that specific conclusionsabout the performance of research universities withinthe context of medical research create a struggle witha variety of data artifacts and anomalies in the reportingof information to the NSF and AAMC. Equallysignificant, some universities share the faculty engagementwith the research enterprise with hospitals andother research institutions, and the success of thesefaculty appears in the totals reported for the nonuniversitymedical institution. Other campuses mayoperate the clinical research establishment of an affiliatedhospital through the university’s research system,adding the hospital-based research to the academiccampus totals.All of these circumstances challenge those whowould make clear and unambiguous statements aboutthe nature, effectiveness, quality, and quantity of theresearch performance of similar campuses. When thedifferences among campuses appear large, we maybe on firmer ground in drawing some conclusions.But when the differences appear relatively small, andchange from year to year, we should exercise greatcaution in presuming to know the difference betweennumber 10 and number 15 in some ranking.Although we have worked with the classification ofresearch universities for some time, our recognitionof the challenges remains as strong as ever. We knowthat, used carefully and effectively, the six years of dataand discussion of TARU can help campuses better understandtheir competitive contexts and improve theirperformance. At the same time, we remain convincedthat the search for the “Single Best American ResearchUniversity” is mostly a waste of time and effort.Page 16Deconstructing the Research University and the Search for Number One
Figure Change 2. Change in Ranking Ranking by by Orginal Original NSF NSF Ranking,with AAMC data removed and with ASEE data removed (2003)6040200-20-40-60-80-100Less MedicalLess EngineeringLess Medical and Engineering-1201 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141Original NSF RankingThe Top American Research Universities 2005 Page 17
Page 1 and 2: TheCenterThe TopAmericanResearchUni
Page 3 and 4: ContentsIntroductionBackground.....
Page 5 and 6: IntroductionBackgroundThe task of b
Page 7 and 8: TheCenter also appears as a referen
Page 9 and 10: Deconstructing University RankingsM
Page 11 and 12: highlighted the caution that must a
Page 13 and 14: Even though this answers the questi
Page 15 and 16: Table 3: Institutions Stay in Top 2
Page 17: Table 5: Institutions In and Out of
Page 21 and 22: AppendixThe Top American Research U
Page 23 and 24: Rank Less ASEERank LessAAMC and ASE
Page 29 and 30: Part IThe Top American ResearchUniv
Page 31 and 32: 2004—AnnualGivingSupport Faculty
Page 33 and 34: 2004—AnnualGivingx $1000Support F
Page 43 and 44: Part IITheCenter Research Universit
Page 45 and 46: 2001—Total Researchx $10002001—
Page 53 and 54: 2001—Federal Researchx $10002001
Page 61 and 62: 2003 Federal Research by Major Disc
Page 69 and 70:
2002—Endowment Assetsx $10002002
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
2002—Annual Givingx $10002002—N
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
2002—NationalAcademyMembers2002
Page 87 and 88:
2002—NationalAcademyMembers2002
Page 89 and 90:
2002—NationalAcademy2002—Nation
Page 91 and 92:
2002—NationalAcademy2002—Nation
Page 93 and 94:
2002—FacultyAwards2002—National
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
2002—Doctorates2002—NationalRan
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
2001—Postdocs2001—NationalRank2
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
2001—SAT Range (V, Q)or ACT Range
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
2002—NationalMerits2002—Nationa
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
2003—FederalResearchFederal Resea
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
2004—AnnualGivingx $1000Annual Gi
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
2004—National MeritScholarsNation
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
FederalLand GrantInstitutionFederal
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Percentage ofTotal StudentsEnrolled
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
2003—No. of Measuresin Top 25Nati
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
2003No. of Measuresin Top 25Among P
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Part IIIThe Top 200 InstitutionsThe
Page 191 and 192:
The Top 200 Institutions -Total Res
Page 193 and 194:
The Top 200 Institutions -Total Res
Page 195 and 196:
The Top 200 Institutions - Federal
Page 197 and 198:
The Top 200 Institutions - Federal
Page 199 and 200:
The Top 200 Institutions - Endowmen
Page 201 and 202:
The Top 200 Institutions - Endowmen
Page 203 and 204:
The Top 200 Institutions - Annual G
Page 205 and 206:
The Top 200 Institutions - Annual G
Page 207 and 208:
The Top 200 Institutions - National
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
The Top 200 Institutions - Faculty
Page 213 and 214:
The Top 200 Institutions - Faculty
Page 215 and 216:
The Top 200 Institutions - Doctorat
Page 217 and 218:
The Top 200 Institutions - Doctorat
Page 219 and 220:
The Top 200 Institutions - Postdoct
Page 221 and 222:
The Top 200 Institutions - Postdoct
Page 223 and 224:
The Top 200 Institutions - SAT Scor
Page 225 and 226:
The Top 200 Institutions - SAT Scor
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Source NotesTheCenter MeasuresTotal
Page 233 and 234:
Annual GivingSource: Council for Ai
Page 235 and 236:
Other Measures ofUndergraduate Qual
Page 237 and 238:
The Top American Research Universit
Page 239 and 240:
Data NotesThe raw data used for The
Page 241 and 242:
Data Notes for Universities with Ov
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
TheCenter StaffJohn V. LombardiCo-E
Page 251 and 252:
The Top American Research Universit
show all

TheCenter The Top American Research Universities

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?