(12-16-2021 10:58 PM)shere khan Wrote: (12-16-2021 09:57 PM)LostInSpace Wrote: (12-16-2021 07:05 PM)shere khan Wrote: (12-16-2021 02:35 PM)tigerjeb Wrote: (12-16-2021 02:01 PM)shere khan Wrote: I don't think all of the b12 schools are R1
TCU is R2
So is Baylor, I just looked it up.
But Kinser said the label should not be viewed as a ranking or rating, but merely a description based on data. For Dartmouth or any other school to fall out of the R1 category “shouldn’t be considered some deficiency in the institution,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grad...ive-group/
I'm m glad Memphis is R1 but R2 is still a national univ.
Swing and a miss.
Dartmouth returned to R1 the next year. Not really sure why they were excluded for a year. Dartmouth was invited to AAU in 2019. Baylor achieved R1 this year too.
Congrats to Memphis.
That's not even the point football bat
It's an old article, how is it a swing and a miss.
yea and you can get the same info directly from those that make the classifications
it is sad what academic has become in many respects
https://www.carnegieclassifications.iu.e...s/faqs.php
* Where are the Carnegie rankings?
The Carnegie Foundation does not rank colleges and universities. Our classifications identify meaningful similarities and differences among institutions,
but they do not imply quality differences.
* What happened to Research I, Research II, etc.? Has the Carnegie Foundation altered its traditional classification framework?
The Research I & II and Doctoral I & II categories of doctorate-granting institutions last appeared in the 1994 edition.
The use of Roman numerals was discontinued to avoid the inference that the categories signify quality differences. The traditional classification framework was updated in 2005 and since identified as the Basic Classification. Many of the category definitions and labels changed with this revision.
* Why did the Carnegie Foundation move away from its original single classification system?
A single classification cannot do justice to the complex nature of higher education today. When the Carnegie Classification was created in 1970, there were about 2,800 U.S. colleges and universities. Today there are more than 4,500.
Colleges and universities are complex organizations, and a single classification masks the range of ways they can resemble or differ from one another.
As valuable as it has been, the basic framework has blind spots. For example, it says nothing about undergraduate education for institutions that award more than a minimum number of graduate degrees. Yet most of these institutions enroll more undergraduates than graduate or professional students.
Another motivation for these changes has to do with the persistent confusion of classification and ranking. For years, both the Carnegie Foundation and others in the higher education community have been concerned about the extent to which the Carnegie Classification dominates considerations of institutional differences, and especially the extent to which it is misinterpreted as an assessment of quality, thereby establishing aspirational targets. This phenomenon has been most pronounced among doctorate-granting institutions, where it is not uncommon to find explicit strategic ambitions to “move up” the perceived hierarchy. By introducing a new set of classifications we hope to call attention to the range of ways that institutions resemble and differ from one another and also to de-emphasize the improper use of the classification as informal quality touchstone.
* Why doesn’t the Carnegie Foundation rank institutions according to teaching quality?
Classification is different from ranking, and the Carnegie Foundation does not rank institutions. Teaching quality is very important, and it is at the heart of many Carnegie Foundation programs, but it is not something that can be reliably assessed at a distance on the basis of available quantitative measures such as faculty salaries or instructional expenditures. Apart from the question of appropriate measures, it is not clear that teaching quality is best assessed at the institutional level, rather than at the department or classroom level.
I mean they could not make it more abundantly clear these are not rankings and should not be used as such, but all the time when they update institutions administrations embarrass themselves and make these press releases......UH was one of the worst offenders they actually had a link to the FAQs on their page talking about their new "ranking" and their supporters still would not believe they were misconstruing something and tried the "well everyone looks at them that way so they are actually rankings even if they are not" line of "logic"
[/align]
