Carnegie "Tier One" Status

[Pony^]

In 2011, the University of Houston was first classified as a Carnegie, R1: (Highest research activity) University, joining Rice, UT Austin and Texas A&M as the only Texas universities so classified.

Rice, Texas and Texas A&M are also members of the Association of American Universities ("AAU").

Many people thought that UH overreacted in 2011 with their claims of tier one status: http://www.uh.edu/about/tier-one/

This year, there are 115 Carnegie, R1 Universities, and there are currently 60 U.S. Universities that are members of the AAU.

Among the 115 Carnegie, R1 Universities this year are four new Texas universities: Texas Tech University, the University of North Texas, the University of Texas at Arlington and the University of Texas at Dallas.

SMU, Baylor and TCU remain classified as Carnegie, R2 Higher research activity Universities.

Thoughts?

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/02/unt-ut-arlington-and-texas-tech-reach-carnegie-tie/

[PonySnob]

Not enough statues and fountains on campus?

[rodrod5]

one needs to keep in mind that these are NOT RANKINGS they are "classifications" and the Carnegie Foundation very clearly disavows the use of their classifications as a ranking

they make very clear they are based on very limited factors that often reflect little if any on the actual quality of teaching of a university or the university students

they also state they do not even vet the quality of the research it is strictly a gross total of research and development

they further make clear that they have tried time and again to change terminology and statements about the classifications to have them not be used as rankings and yet some (mainly large research universities clutching for prestige) ignore their statements and continue to try and use them as rankings

also they really have made them worthless as even a classification at this point

take for instance north Texas state university and normal college they are classified as "highest" and yet they do significantly less research than OkState and they also graduate less Doctoral students as well and most of their doctoral students are in the soft and social sciences

yet somehow OkState is classified as "higher" and not "highest"

I am not sure how at this point unless the Carnegie Foundation has tried to normalize for "PI" (primary investigators IE PhD researchers) on staff....north Texas state seems to have managed to low ball that number in spite of their overall faculty and student count and that probably helps to explain their very poor overall research profile relative to university size and overall faculty count

at this point these classifications have become pretty much useless and they are nowhere close to being "rankings" or useful for that (in spite of what UH tries to falsely claim)

[tristatecoog]

How does UH's research compare with SMU, UNT and OK State?

[rodrod5]

How does UH's research compare with SMU, UNT and OK State?

they count research AND development

but here are the latest 2014 numbers

http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html ... ST_19.html (what would have been used by IU for the Classifications)

UH $140,597
OkState $126,543
north Texas state university and normal college $44,180
SMU $32,401

[tristatecoog]

Thanks. Interesting that OSU hasn't made it into the "highest" classification with that level of R&D vs. UNT.

Also, loose comps to SMU are Boston College ($50M), Baylor ($21M) and Pepperdine ($2M).

[Pony^]

rodrod5,

Did you go to Ok State?

[rodrod5]

no I did not go to OkState