Changes in the Carnegie Classifications: What They Mean for Colleges & Universities

1. Changes in the Carnegie Classifications:What They Mean for Colleges & Universities Perry Deess Ph.D. Director of Institutional Research and Planning, NJIT Annual Meeting of the Association of NJ Graduate Schools March 24, 2006

2. Clark Kerr A Little History • 1970: The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education creates a classification system to serve its research program • 1973: Classification published to assist research on higher education • 1976, 1987, 1994, 2000: revised editions • 2005-06: major revisions

3. Original Design Principles • Seek comparability with respect to: • Functions of the institutions • Characteristics of students and faculty • Use empirical data about what institutions do • Secondary analysis of existing data

4. Why Was The Classification Changed? • Higher education has changed • 1970 framework has weaknesses and blind spots • A single framework is not sufficient • Value in acknowledging complexity BIG REASON • To reduce competition based on the classification system

5. Summary of Changes Comprehensive (all-inclusive) schemes • Basic, with changes • Instructional Program • Undergraduate • Graduate • Student Profile • Overall • Undergraduate • Size & Setting Elective (voluntary) schemes • Outreach & Community Engagement • Undergraduate Education Inquiry & Support

6. Basic Classification • Associate’s: subcategories • Doctorate-granting: index of research activity • Master’s: finer distinctions • Baccalaureate: “liberal arts” to “arts & sciences” • Special focus: sharper definition

7. Doctorate-granting: index of research activity • Doctoral institutions are a key area of competition • Three categories now • Research universities—very high research activity • Research universities—high research activity • Doctoral/Research universities

8. Defining Doctoral Institutions*(IPEDS based doctoral conferrals; professional doctorates not counted for the base of 20; research staff from NSF survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering ) • “The research index is based on the following correlates of research activity: research and development expenditures in science and engineering (NSF R&D survey); research and development expenditures in non-science and engineering fields; science and engineering research staff; and doctoral conferrals in humanities fields, social science fields science technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, and professional fields. These data were statistically combined using principal component analysis to create two indices of research activity. The first index was based on aggregate levels of these factors ,. The second index, of per-capita research activity, used the expenditure and staffing measures divided by the number of full time faculty members whose primary responsibilities were identified as research, instruction, or a combination of instruction, research and public service. (From IPEDS)”

9. Defining Doctoral Institutions (continued) • “The values in each index were then used to locate each institution on a two-dimensional graph (scatterplot). Each institution’s distance from a common reference point was calculated, and the results were used to assign institutions to three groups based on their distance from the reference point. Thus the aggregate and per-capita indices were considered equally such that institutions that were very high on either index were assigned to the “very high” group, while institutions that were high on one but (but very high on neither) were assigned to the ‘high’ group.” • [The Chronicle of Higher Education March 3, 2006]

10. What does this mean? “Ain’t nobody gonna figger how ta game it.” • The point of this is to prevent competition and limit the explosion of doctoral programs for competition in a ranking system. • The system is fundamentally relational • The mathematics are virtually inscrutable • It IS competitive, but few schools will spend the time to work out how to compete

11. How to game the doctoral ranking system? • Have a long talk with the people completing the NSF R&D Survey, the NSF Graduate Student and Post-doctorate Survey, and the IPEDS. • If they carefully and position the university based on the criteria described above they can maximize your chances of reaching a higher tier. • Remember you only need one VERY HIGH index score to achieve the VERY HIGH category.

12. Undergraduate Degree level Balance of arts & sciences and professional fields Correspondence with graduate programs Instructional Program Graduate • Degree levels • Mix of offerings • Comprehensive • Focused

13. Overall student profile Mix of undergraduate and graduate/professional enrollments Student Profile Undergraduate profile • Proportion full- & part-time • Achievement characteristics of first-year students • Transfer-in percentage

14. Size and Setting • Total enrollment • Residential character

15. Outreach & community engagement Mix of outreach and engagement activities Elective (voluntary) Schemes Undergraduate education inquiry & support • Efforts to assess undergraduate education • Support for assessing & improving teaching & learning

16. How to do peer analysis? (cont.)

17. How to do peer analysis? (cont.)

28. Why was all of this done? • To facilitate peer analysis • To aid research • To develop generally non-competitive scales • To encourage more sophisticated ranking—particularly by US News

29. Advantages • Complexity • Flexibility • More nuanced classification • Better matching of classification to purpose • Possibilities for customization • Responsibility • Make & justify choices

30. How to do peer analysis? • Start at this site: http://www.carnegieclassification-preview.org/

31. How to do peer analysis? (cont.)

32. How to do peer analysis? (cont.)

41. Where to Learn More • www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications • Copies of slides: http://www.njit.edu/v2/Directory/iresearch/index.html.htm • For more information contact: Perry Deess deess@njit.edu