From: technews <technews@ou.edu>
To: "'it-fyi@listserv.ou.edu'" <it-fyi@lists.ou.edu>
Subject: it-fyi: Carnegie Proposes Revisions to Classifying Universities (
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:58:35 -0500
> Carnegie Proposes Sweeping Revisions to Its System of Classifying
> Universities
>
By KIT LIVELY
>
Universities have sometimes lobbied for more federal research funds in hopes
of improving their so-called Carnegie Classification, and hence their
status. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching is planning
to revise its classifications in a way that would largely thwart those
ambitions, by removing research funds from the equation altogether.
>
> The foundation created its classifications in 1970 to group institutions
> according to their academic missions. It is proposing to revamp its
> criteria for several of the categories, in part, to diminish the extent to
> which the classifications can be used to affect an institution's fortunes
> in many ways, including its treatment in college rankings.
>
> The biggest revisions are proposed for universities that award doctoral
> degrees, with less-drastic changes proposed for institutions that award
> primarily baccalaureate and associate degrees. No changes are proposed for
> the "comprehensive" colleges and universities that focus on master's
> programs.
>
> Carnegie officials said the changes were designed to discourage the use of
> the classifications to "confer status or to rank institutions." Officials
> also hope the changes will discourage doctoral-granting institutions from
> planning new programs with an eye to how they will affect the Carnegie
> Classification instead of how they will mesh with the institution's
> academic mission.
>
> "We recognize how the classifications have been diffused to be used in
> different contexts," said Alexander C. McCormick, a senior scholar at
> Carnegie who is heading up the revision effort. "Some have real
> implications for institutions."
>
> "We are concerned about -- particularly among doctoral institutions -- the
> tournament mentality that has grown up around the classifications," he
> said. "This has led to an imbalance in the attention given to various
> components of an institution's mission."
>
> The foundation has proposed creating a new classification, tentatively to
> be called "Doctoral/Research Universities," to include institutions that
> confer a certain number of doctorates. The new category would be
> subdivided into two levels, according to the number of doctorates
> conferred annually and the number of disciplines in which those degrees
> are granted.
>
> The new approach would replace a system that distinguishes between
> "research" and "doctoral" institutions, based primarily on the amount of
> federal research money they attract each year. Those classifications,
> Carnegie officials said, imply to some people that professors at
> "doctoral" institutions do not do research. Foundation officials also
> noted that the current system rewards the kinds of research that attract
> federal money, notably in the sciences, and can discourage universities
> from planning growth in other areas.
>
> Under the proposal, the two divisions within the "baccalaureate"
> classification would be distinguished by the proportions of an
> institution's diplomas that confer bachelor's degrees, as opposed to
> associate degrees, and those that are awarded in the liberal arts.
> Baccalaureate I institutions will be those that award greater proportions
> of their diplomas as bachelor's degrees and in the liberal arts, compared
> with Baccalaureate II colleges. The category for "Associate's Colleges"
> will have more-explicit rules distinguishing them from baccalaureate
> institutions. The classification will include colleges for which fewer
> than half of the undergraduate awards are bachelor's degrees.
>
> Carnegie will continue to average data over three years when it assigns
> institutions to the revised categories. The most recent data available
> probably will be from the 1996-97 academic year. Mr. McCormick said that
> some institutions will move to new categories, such as from Baccalaureate
> II to Baccalaureate I, but that he expected few changes.
>
> The foundation also plans to begin allowing colleges that are close to the
> cusp between two classifications to decide which best matches their
> missions.
>
> Carnegie began classifying all accredited, degree-granting institutions as
> a way to help higher-education researchers keep track of the various kinds
> of colleges and universities that exist. The classifications were changed
> in 1973, 1976, 1987, and 1994, primarily to insure that institutions were
> assigned based on the most current data.
>
> The current proposal for revisions is an intermediate step in Carnegie's
> plan to overhaul the entire classification system in 2005. Details are
> still vague, but Mr. McCormick said that the system could place colleges
> in a broader array of categories, reflecting different characteristics of
> institutions. Colleges could then be measured in all of the categories to
> give a fuller picture of their missions.
>
> For example, Mr. McCormick said, the new classifications could provide
> niches for institutions that want to emphasize teaching and service as
> well as research. He added that Carnegie would have to decide how to
> factor in such elements as distance education.
>
> CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION 2000
>
> This table [not shown here] summarizes substantive changes planned for the
> 2000 edition of the Carnegie Classification. Only those categories for
> which substantive changes are planned are listed. Precise cutoff points
> are subject to change pending analysis of new data.
>
[The 1994 Carnegie Classification is available on line at
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/cihe]
> _________________________________________________________________
> Copyright 1999 by The Chronicle of Higher Education