TheCenter The Top American Research Universities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 228
Source NotesTheCenter MeasuresTotal Research ExpendituresFederal Research ExpendituresSource: NSF/SRS Survey of R&D Expenditures atUniversities and Colleges, FY 2003.Each year, the National Science Foundation (NSF)collects data from hundreds of academic institutionson expenditures for research and development inscience and engineering fields and classifies them bysource of funds (e.g., federal government, state andlocal government, industry, etc.). These data are theprimary source of information on academic researchand development (R&D) expenditures in the UnitedStates. Included in this survey are all activities specificallyorganized to produce research outcomesthat are separately budgeted and accounted for. This“organized research” may be funded by an externalagency or organization (“sponsored research”) or bya separately budgeted organizational unit within theinstitution (“university research”). This report excludesactivities sponsored by external agencies that involveinstruction, training (except training in research techniques,which is considered organized research), andhealth service, community service, or extension serviceprojects.All Federally Funded Research Labs (FFRLs) areexcluded from these academic expenditures data, includingthe following: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (CaliforniaInstitute of Technology); Los Alamos NationalLab, Lawrence Livermore Lab, Lawrence BerkeleyLab (University of California); Software EngineeringInstitute (Carnegie Mellon); Argonne National Laboratory(University of Chicago); National Astronomyand Ionospheric Center (Cornell); Ames Laboratory(Iowa State University); Lincoln Laboratory (MIT);Plasma Physics Lab (Princeton); and Linear AcceleratorCenter (Stanford). The NSF data no longer classifythe Applied Physics Lab (APL) at Johns Hopkins as anFFRL, but federal funds support the vast majority ofresearch conducted there. The APL makes up nearlyone-half of Johns Hopkins’ total R&D expendituresand 53 percent of its federal R&D expenditures.While inconsistencies in reporting (known andunknown) do exist here, as in any survey of this type,problems arise mostly when one breaks out the databy source of funds. NSF expects institutions to useyear-end accounting records to complete this report,and there are nationally recognized accounting guidelinesfor higher education institutions. However, thereare also countless variations in institutional policy thatdetermine whether the university reports a particularexpenditure as coming from one source or another, orpossibly not counted at all. Take federal formula fundsfor agriculture (e.g., Hatch-McIntire, Smith-Lever) asan example. We conducted an informal survey of theappropriate institutions in the Association of AmericanUniversities (AAU) and found that two out ofeleven land grants did not include any of these federalfunds in their 1997 NSF data, while others includedall or some of these monies. Because these funds makeup a very small percentage of the total research expendituresin any given year, the impact on our totalresearch rankings is slight. The agriculture formulafunds will have a somewhat greater, but still small,impact on the federal research rankings. NSF notes,“An increasing number of institutions have linkageswith industry and foundations via subcontracts, thuscomplicating the identification of funding source. Inaddition, institutional policy may determine whetherunrestricted state support is reported as state or asinstitutional funds.” 1We believe that the reporting inconsistencies in thedata are relatively minor when using the total researchexpenditures and the federal research expenditurescomponent. Federal and state government audits ofinstitutional accounting make deceptive practiceshighly unlikely, even though these entities do notaudit the NSF data directly. NSF goes to great lengthsto verify the accuracy of the data, especially federalexpenditure data—checking them against severalother federal agencies that collect the same or similarinformation. In fact, all major federal agencies andtheir subdivisions submit data to NSF identifyingresearch obligations to universities each year. Historically,the NSF data have tracked very closely the datareported by universities. 2 Further, for their NationalPatterns of R&D Resources series, NSF prefers to usethe figures reported by the performers of the work(that is, academic institutions, industry, nonprofits)because they believe that the performers are in thebest position to accurately report these expenditures.1. Academic R&D Expenditures, FY 2000: TechnicalNotes (On-line: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf02308/secta.htm)2. National Patterns of R&D Resources, 1998: TechnicalNotes (On-line: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf99335/appa.htm)The Top American Research Universities 2005 Page 229
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 and 18:
Table 5: Institutions In and Out of
Page 19 and 20:
Figure Change 2. Change in Ranking
Page 21 and 22:
AppendixThe Top American Research U
Page 23 and 24:
Rank Less ASEERank LessAAMC and ASE
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
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 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Part IITheCenter Research Universit
Page 45 and 46:
2001—Total Researchx $10002001—
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
2001—Federal Researchx $10002001
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
2003 Federal Research by Major Disc
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
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: 2003—No. of Measuresin Top 25Nati
Page 181 and 182: 2003No. of Measuresin Top 25Among P
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 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 229: The Top 200 Institutions - National
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?