1 / 20

Inventing the Future: 2005 Revisions to the Carnegie Classification

This article discusses the 2005 revisions to the Carnegie Classification, a classification scheme for postsecondary institutions. It explores the history, purpose, and criteria of the traditional classification, as well as the changes made in 2000 and 2005. The article also introduces the two classification schemes introduced in 2005, the Comprehensive Scheme and the Elective Scheme, and describes their criteria and categories. The timeline of the rollout of the new schemes is also mentioned.

rdaniels
Download Presentation

Inventing the Future: 2005 Revisions to the Carnegie Classification

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Inventing the Future:2005 Revisions to the Carnegie Classification President’s 2005 Planning Retreat August 16, 2005

  2. Carnegie Classification of Postsecondary Institutions • History • Devised by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education in the 1970’s to provide a classification scheme informing its research program • Published in 1973 for use by others conducting research on higher education • Tool for simplifying the complexity of U.S. higher education

  3. Carnegie Classification of Postsecondary Institutions • Purpose • To identify categories of roughly comparable institutions within which meaningful comparisons can be made • Not intended to represent the full identify or fundamental character of an institution • Not intended to represent quality differences

  4. Traditional Classification • Doctorate-Granting Institutions • Research I & II • Doctoral I &II • Comprehensive Universities & Colleges • Liberal Arts Colleges • Associate’s Institutions • Specialized Institutions

  5. Classification Criteria • Level of Program • Number of Programs • Number of Degrees Awarded

  6. Traditional Classification • Doctorate Granting Institutions • Research I - $40 million + • Research II - $15.5 to 40 million • Doctoral I - 40 doctorates in 5+ disciplines • Doctoral II - 10 doctorates in 3+ disciplines 20 doctorates in 1+ disciplines

  7. 2000 Revision • Retained the basic structure that was established in 1971 • Reduced the number of doctorate granting institutions • Eliminated use of federal funding • Rough proxy for research activity • Focused on doctoral production • Volume and fields represented

  8. Research I Research II Doctoral I Doctoral II Doctoral/Research Extensive Doctoral/Research Intensive 2000 Revision

  9. 2005 Revision to Classification • Single classification scheme hampered ability of researchers and policy makers to make use of other areas of similarity • Widely interpreted as a ranking scheme

  10. Summary of 2005 Revisions • Two Schemes • Comprehensive Scheme—includes all degree-granting Title IV eligible institutions of higher education included in the federal data collection by NCES • Elective Scheme—voluntary participation by institutions with strong commitments in selected areas

  11. Comprehensive Schemes Traditional, Revised Undergraduate Programs Graduate Programs Overall Student Profile UndergraduateStudent Profile Size and Setting of Institution Elective Schemes Assessment and Support of Undergraduate Education Service and Community Engagement 2005: Two Classification Schemes

  12. Comprehensive Scheme: Traditional Revised • Will be based on the traditional framework but with revisions that include: • Multiple measures to assess research activity in doctoral institutions • Improve treatment of primarily undergraduate colleges • Create subcategories of 2-year colleges

  13. Comprehensive Scheme: Undergraduate Programs • All institutions with undergraduate programs • Criteria • Level of program (Associate’s or Bachelor’s) • Program emphasis (A&S or Professional) • Co-existence of graduate programs

  14. All institutions with graduate programs Criteria Level of program (doctoral/non-doctoral) Number of doctorates awarded Comprehensiveness/Focus of programs Existence of medical degrees Comprehensive Scheme: Graduate Programs

  15. Enrollment Profile Student mix Undergraduate Graduate Professional Non-degree Undergraduate Profile Proportion full-time Achievement of first-year students First-year progression vs. transfer Comprehensive Scheme:Student Profiles

  16. Comprehensive Scheme: Size and Setting • Locale (urban, suburban, rural) • Total enrollment • Residential nature of institution and surrounding area

  17. Assessment & Support of Undergraduate Education Efforts to assess undergraduate education Support for assessing and improving teaching and learning Service & Community Engagement Commitment to service, outreach and engagement activities Pilot project with 14 campuses Elective Schemes

  18. 1971-2000 Traditional Taxonomy 2005 Traditional Taxonomy Undergrad Programs Graduate Programs Enrollment Profile Undergraduate Profile Size and Setting Elective Schemes Comparison of 2000 and 2005

  19. Timeline • Draft versions of new schemes and criteria beginning in June • Phased rollout of assignments beginning mid-November

More Related