University Business - July/August 2011 - (Page 12)

Behind the news Rankings of a Global Nature sTeP aside U.S. NEWS & WorlD report. Move over Princeton review. your annual rankings may instill confidence or consternation among U.s. colleges and universities (depending on placement), but you’re not the only game in town. it’s a big world out there. When it comes to the global education picture, there’s another yardstick to measure quality. The Qs World University rankings are the first in the world to rank universities at individual subject level. Headquartered in London, Qs is Quacquarelli symonds, a company that tracks and promotes study abroad programs. Unlike other rankings, which are often perceived as popularity contests, Qs is not geared to students as much as it is to the global marketplace. researcher Ben sowter said the Qs survey also asks global employers to identify the institutions that produce the best graduates, both overall and within a given discipline. “Taking on board the views of global employers means that these rankings move away from research and give a sense of the real-world market value of different degree programs,” sowter says. so how do U.s. schools compare on the global level? in the full survey of 26 disciplines, american universities did quite well, with 119 institutions showing up in at least one subject. This was followed by Uk (64), Germany (39), australia (31), France (31), canada (21), Japan (18), china (14), and the netherlands (14). Harvard scored at the top in 17 subjects, including Politics, accounting, and economics. MiT was next with six first place spots, followed by cambridge (two), oxford and stanford (one each). The full 2011 Qs World University rankings report is available at www .topuniversities.com. —Tim Goral 12 | July/August 2011 U Faculty Productivity, College Costs Examined Texas Governor rick Perry’s recent assertion that the state’s colleges and universities should seek to provide a bachelor’s degree costing less than $10,000 certainly got richard vedder’s attention. as director of The center for college affordability and Productivity and author of Going Broke By Degree: Why College Costs Too Much (aei Press, 2004), vedder was conducting a data analysis of faculty productivity at The University of Texas at Austin. Perry’s speech sparked an idea, and the policy paper vedder co-authored includes scenarios on how tuition could be more affordable if the emphasis on faculty teaching were increased moderately. in one scenario, 2009-2010 in-state tuition levels could have been reduced 63.6 percent, from $8,936 to $3,254 per year. The paper is a preliminary analysis specifically of data from UT-austin, chosen because of the vast detail on faculty available— including such factors as teaching loads, class size, tenure status, and research awards, more than vedder says he’s seen published on any other school. But as the paper notes, even a limited analysis can “show the power of the data set in pointing the direction for future change” and what changing personnel usage could mean. While the analysis may not be possible for other states, the pressure to reduce tuition and costs is prevalent across the country. “it’s not an easy problem to solve,” vedder says. But with growing “financial pain levels” and constant attention to the rewards of a college education not being as substantial as in the past, he says, “We are going to have to see a change.” vedder, who spent 45 years as a faculty member, notes that teaching loads have fallen substantially since the 1960s and 1970s, adding that it’s mainly “in the name of research. ... a lot of faculty are either doing obscure research or other things.” He acknowledges many are “hard working, good people,” yet their lives have “gone a little soft. We run the universities for our benefit, not our students.” among the study’s highlights: • Twenty percent of UT Austin faculty are teaching 57 percent of student credit hours. • The least productive 20 percent of faculty teach 2 percent of all student credit hours. • Only 2 percent of the faculty conduct 57 percent of funded research. • The most active researchers teach nearly the average of all faculty; increasing teaching loads of others would trivially impact outside research support. Lest administrators think the study indicates productivity issues exist only on the faculty side, vedder believes the findings would likely hold for “bloated” non-faculty ranks as well. “if you do a rational cost/benefit analysis, a lot of the activity would not pass the smell test.” The UT faculty study is available at http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org /research/studies. —M.E. universitybusiness.com http://www.topuniversities.com http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/research/studies http://www.topuniversities.com http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/research/studies http://www.universitybusiness.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of University Business - July/August 2011

University Business - July/August 2011
Contents
Editor's Note
Ad Index
College Index
Behind the News
Sense of Place
Viewpoint
Financial Success
Money Matters
Community Colleges
Funding Capture
Models of Efficiency
Thwarting ID Thieves
Embezzlement Epidemic
What's New
End Note

University Business - July/August 2011