Accountability Report 2016

Chapter 14:

Honors and Rankings

Over the past several decades, a growing number of organizations have created ranking systems aiming to measure the quality of higher education institutions, with the goal of providing information to students and their families as they make their college decisions. Ranking systems differ significantly in the factors they consider, and the emphasis they place on these factors, not only among ranking systems but also in the way each of them ranks institutions every year. In many cases, methodology changes make it impossible to make ranking comparisons for the same institution over time.

As described in this chapter, UC campuses are well represented in the various ranking systems, with many of them near or at the top of public institutions. For example, in this year’s College Access Index from the New York Times, six UC campuses are among the top seven colleges that are doing the most for low-income students. After evaluating these students’ graduation rates and the net cost students pay for a college education, the Times called the UC system “California’s upward-mobility machine” for providing a “top-flight education for the masses.”

In addition to the College Access Index, this chapter also provides information across a sample of other national and international ranking systems and describes how each of these uses a different combination of factors to signal aspects of quality across colleges and universities. For example, two organizations — U.S. News and World Report (USNWR) and the Washington Monthly — both rank undergraduate institutions, but they define education quality and value very differently.

USNWR focuses on academic reputation, graduation rates, student selectivity and financial resources to create its list of America’s Best Colleges; in contrast, the Washington Monthly defines academic quality in terms of an institution’s contribution to the public good. One ranking system, USNWR, looks at the quality of graduate and professional education in the U.S. Two other ranking systems — the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings — rank institutions around the globe, primarily using measures of faculty research productivity.

In May 2016, The Washington Post also produced its first ranking of institutions based on an analysis of transfer student data, with UCLA as the national leader among top-tier schools for the number of transfer students accepted each year.

Importantly, while we recognize that all of these rankings may be sources of information for students, UC does not endorse any particular ranking system nor does it have specific goals with respect to any of them. In fact, over the past few years, UC has strongly supported the development of the College Scorecard, a single source of national data and metrics that provide key information about college opportunity, cost of attendance and value of a degree available to the general public.

In September of 2015, after several years of continued efforts, the Department of Education unveiled a revamped version of the College Scorecard, an interactive tool that allows students, parents and counselors to search and compare institutions using their own academic, career and financial goals preferences. The College Scorecard includes information about student outcomes such as graduation rates, former student earnings, graduates’ student debt and borrowers’ repayment rates, with some of these data also available for various subgroups, such as first-generation and Pell students.

Analyses of the College Scorecard data demonstrate that UC continues to be a good investment for students and their families. Compared to other non-UC AAU public institutions, UC provides greater access for low-income and first-generation students, and underrepresented minorities. UC also demonstrates a strong record of high graduation rates and high median earnings after graduation for all students including those of low-income backgrounds.

Assessing institutional value-added, that is, how much the institutions themselves contribute to the outcomes of the students they enroll, is another interesting development in the ability to compare across higher education institutions. In the report “Beyond College Rankings: A Value-Added Approach to Assessing Two- and Four-Year Schools,” researchers from the Brookings Institution designed a method that takes into account a set of institutional and student characteristics. This makes it possible to determine institutional performance in student economic outcomes that are independent of what can be attributable to the type of students they enroll. Using this approach, UC campuses are among the public institutions offering the highest added value to their students.

One of the points of pride for the University of California is providing undergraduate and graduate students, many of them low-income, with access to an educational and research environment that is comparable to the nation’s finest private institutions but on a significantly larger scale. Each of five UC campuses enrolls more low-income students than all eight Ivy League institutions combined. This high-quality experience comes in large part from the excellence of UC’s faculty. Over the last decade, a UC faculty member has received a Nobel Prize on an almost annual basis, with 61 Nobel recipients in total for the UC system, placing it fourth in comparison to other countries. In addition, 600 UC scholars have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, a recognition that scientists receive for continuing achievements in original research.

Throughout this chapter, rankings of comparison institutions are included.

The rankings selected for this report are as follows:

  • The New York Times College Access Index
  • Washington Monthly: National University Rankings
  • U.S. News: America’s Top National Universities
  • U.S. News: Graduate Program Rankings
  • Shanghai Ranking Consultancy: Academic Ranking of World Universities
  • Times Higher Education: World University Ranking
  • The Washington Post: Top Transfer Destinations

For more information:

College Scorecard

Related Topic Briefs:



14.1 NEW YORK TIMES: COLLEGE ACCESS INDEX

Six of the top seven universities promoting social mobility in the nation are UC campuses, according to the College Access Index.

In its second year of publication, the College Access Index ranking system is one of the few ranking systems that focuses on colleges that are doing the most for low-income students. With income inequality at the forefront of the national conversation, these rankings are based on three factors: the share of students who receive Pell Grants, the graduation rates of those students and the prices that colleges charge both low- and middle-income students. In 2014, the index was limited to mostly private and very small selective colleges due to its criterion of only including institutions with 4-year graduation rates of at least 75%. The New York Times modified its criteria to 5-year graduation rates of at least 75% in 2015, resulting in the inclusion of substantially more public universities.

14.1.1    New York Times: College Access Index Rank

  2015
Irvine 1
Davis 2
Santa Barbara 3
San Diego 4
Los Angeles 5
Berkeley 7
Harvard 11
MIT 17
Stanford 19
Yale 26
U of Michigan 48
U of Illinois 49
U of Virginia 102


14.2 Washington Monthly: National UNIVERSITY RANKINGS

UC is highly rated in the Washington Monthly rankings, which focus on contributions to the public good. In the 2015 listing, four of the top ten universities are UC campuses.

Washington Monthly developed its ranking system in 2005 as an alternative to U.S. News’s America’s Best Colleges rankings. Unlike U.S. News, which ranks institutions on their prestige, resources and selectivity, Washington Monthly ranks institutions on their contributions to the public good.

Its rankings are based on three broad factors: how well each institution fosters social mobility (e.g., percentage of students receiving Pell Grants); furthers research (e.g., faculty awards and Ph.D. production); and serves the country (e.g., student participation in ROTC and the Peace Corps).

14.2.1    Washington Monthly: National University Rankings, 2005 to 2015

Washington Monthly did not publish rankings for 2008.

 
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
San Diego
8
6
4
n/a
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Riverside
-
22
15
n/a
16
40
5
9
2
2
2
Berkeley
3
2
3
n/a
1
2
3
5
5
3
4
Stanford
5
7
13
n/a
4
4
4
3
6
6
5
Los Angeles
2
4
2
n/a
3
3
2
6
10
5
6
Harvard
16
28
27
n/a
11
9
6
11
8
10
8
U of Michigan
10
18
6
n/a
18
7
10
13
12
13
13
Santa Barbara
-
57
36
n/a
21
11
13
14
22
15
14
MIT
1
1
27
n/a
12
15
11
15
11
14
15
Davis
17
10
8
n/a
10
6
8
17
23
16
16
U of Illinois
13
16
11
n/a
24
27
38
22
19
26
27
Yale
15
12
38
n/a
23
33
39
41
54
57
44
Irvine
-
72
49
n/a
44
50
60
117
84
83
51
U of Virginia
22
20
16
n/a
26
59
53
48
51
60
63
Santa Cruz
-
68
76
n/a
56
93
70
67
65
79
73
Univ. at Buffalo
-
203
111
n/a
101
121
160
202
204
162
153


14.3 U.S. NEWS: AMERICA’S TOP UNIVERSITIES

Of the top ten national public universities in the U.S. News and World Report ranking, five are UC campuses.

First published in 1983, the U.S. News and World Report college rankings are the oldest and best known of all college rankings. These rankings are based on seven major factors: peer assessment, graduation and retention rates, faculty resources, student selectivity, financial resources and alumni-giving rates. U.S. News’s rankings of top national universities focus on academic reputation, financial resources and selectivity — factors that tend to privilege older, well-established, elite private institutions.  

14.3.1 U.S. News: America’s Top National Universities, 2007 to 2016 

  2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Harvard 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Yale 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Stanford 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 5 4 4
MIT 4 7 4 4 7 5 6 7 7 7
Berkeley 21 21 21 21 22 21 21 20 20 20
Los Angeles 26 25 25 24 25 25 24 23 23 23
U of Virginia 24 23 23 24 25 25 24 23 23 26
U of Michigan 24 25 26 27 29 28 29 28 29 29
Santa Barbara 47 44 44 42 39 42 41 41 40 37
Irvine 44 44 44 46 41 45 44 49 42 39
San Diego 38 38 35 35 35 37 38 39 37 39
Davis 47 42 44 42 39 38 38 39 38 41
U of Illinois 41 38 40 39 47 45 46 41 42 41
Santa Cruz 76 79 96 71 72 75 77 86 85 82
Univ. at Buffalo * * 121 121 120 111 106 109 103 99
Riverside 88 96 89 96 94 97 101 112 113 121

 *third tier

 Since 2014, the top-ranked national university has been Princeton University.  

14.3.2 U.S. News: America’s Top National Public Universities, 2007 to 2016

 
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Berkeley
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Los Angeles
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
U of Virginia
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
U of Michigan
2
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
Santa Barbara
13
13
12
11
9
10
10
11
10
8
Irvine
12
13
12
14
11
13
12
14
11
9
San Diego
8
8
7
7
7
8
8
9
8
9
Davis
13
11
12
11
9
9
8
9
9
11
U of Illinois
10
8
10
9
15
13
13
11
11
12
Santa Cruz
33
35
45
29
29
31
32
36
35
34
Univ. at Buffalo
-
-
-
-
-
54
51
53
48
45
Riverside
39
45
40
43
41
41
46
55
55
58

U.S. News labels its undergraduate rankings for the prospective year; the 2015 rankings were published August 2014. UC San Francisco is not included in U.S. News’ “America’s Best Colleges” rankings because it is a graduate health sciences campus; Merced, which opened in 2005, also is not yet included in these rankings.  



14.4 U.S. News: Graduate Program Rankings

UC’s graduate and professional programs are consistently highly rated in comparison to peer institutions.

U.S. News has ranked American universities’ graduate programs in business, education, engineering, law and medicine since 2000. Like its college rankings, USNWR’s graduate program rankings are controversial. The absence of an institution from a top ranking does not necessarily imply that it received a lower ranking: Berkeley, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz, for example, do not offer M.D. degrees and thus are not ranked in medicine while Riverside’s M.D. program is too new to be ranked.

14.4.1    U.S. News: Graduate Program Rankings, 2007 to 2016

  Campus 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Business Harvard 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1
Stanford 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
MIT 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 5 5
Berkeley 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Yale 14 13 10 11 10 10 13 13 13 8
U of Virginia 12 14 15 13 13 13 12 11 10 11
U of Michigan 11 12 13 12 14 13 14 11 11 12
Los Angeles 16 11 14 15 14 15 14 16 15 15
U of Illinois 38 38 42 42 37 37 47 35 47 39
Davis 44 40 42 42 28 36 40 41 48 45
Irvine 44 nr 36 36 40 49 49 45 53 48
San Diego 73 60 63 77
Univ. at Buffalo nr nr nr nr 75 89 75 74 79 81
Riverside nr nr nr nr nr 97 nr nr nr nr

  Campus 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Education Stanford 2 1 2 5 4 4 5 4 3 1
Harvard 3 6 6 3 2 2 3 3 2 2
Los Angeles 5 3 5 6 6 6 8 11 13 11
U of Michigan 6 9 14 14 9 12 11 8 11 12
Berkeley 8 7 7 10 12 13 12 14 17 18
U of Virginia 31 24 21 21 22 23 22 22 22 21
U of Illinois 25 48 25 25 23 22 19 26 24 23
Irvine nr nr nr nr 48 43 37 36 31 25
Santa Barbara nr nr nr nr 58 63 40 64 67 49
Davis nr nr nr nr 58 63 60 45 38 51
Riverside nr nr nr nr 66 67 74 77 76 62
San Diego   98 99 74

  Campus 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Engineering MIT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Stanford 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Berkeley 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
U of Michigan 9 9 9 8 9 8 9 8 6 6
U of Illinois 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7
Los Angeles 16 13 14 15 14 16 16 16 14 14
San Diego 13 11 12 13 14 14 14 14 17 17
Harvard 23 22 18 19 18 19 23 24 20 24
Santa Barbara 19 19 18 19 21 21 20 19 23 23
Davis 32 33 32 32 31 31 33 31 33 33
Irvine 37 35 36 36 39 39 37 38 37 37
Yale 39 40 39 39 35 34 34 34 35 38
U of Virginia 38 37 39 39 39 39 38 40 39 39
Univ. at Buffalo nr nr nr nr 52 54 61 60 59 61
Riverside nr nr nr nr 66 64 67 69 71 71
Santa Cruz nr nr nr nr 78 87 87 81 88 87

  Campus 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Law Yale 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Harvard 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Stanford 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2
Berkeley 8 6 6 7 9 7 9 9 8 8
U of Michigan 8 9 9 9 7 10 9 10 11 8
U of Virginia 10 9 10 10 9 7 7 8 8 8
Los Angeles 15 16 15 15 16 15 17 16 16 17
Irvine nr nr 30 28
Davis 44 35 28 28 23 29 38 36 31 30
U of Illinois 25 27 23 21 23 35 47 40 41 40
Hastings 38 39 42 42 42 44 48 54 59 50
Univ. at Buffalo 100 85 third tier third tier 84 82 86 100 87 100

  Campus 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Medicine: Primary
Care		 San Francisco 8 6 5 5 4 3 4 4 3 3
U of Michigan 45 17 7 14 20 8 8 8 5 4
Los Angeles 18 12 10 14 16 10 11 13 7 6
Harvard 13 7 15 17 15 15 14 11 12 17
San Diego 35 26 28 28 33 27 39 38 19 21
U of Virginia 38 35 29 39 20 19 18 29 40 25
Davis 26 35 20 20 41 24 19 16 19 37
Stanford 63 62 38 25 37
Yale nr nr nr nr 67 74 72 68 57 37
Irvine nr nr nr nr nr 86 66 61 62 62
Univ. at Buffalo nr nr nr nr 86 nr 79 nr nr nr

  Campus 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Medicine: Research Harvard 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Stanford 7 8 6 11 5 4 2 2 2 2
San Francisco 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 3 3
Yale 8 9 6 6 5 7 7 7 7 8
U of Michigan 10 11 11 6 10 10 8 12 10 11
Los Angeles 13 9 11 11 13 13 13 12 13 14
San Diego 14 14 15 16 15 16 15 14 17 18
U of Virginia 25 22 25 26 26 26 28
Irvine 43 45 47 47 42 44 42 43 45 44
Davis 48 48 47 47 42 42 42 40 43 47
Univ. at Buffalo nr nr nr nr 55 57 64 71 nr nr


Notes: “nr” denotes the program was not rated in that year. Professional programs are listed here by what U.S. News calls the “edition” year, which is one year after the “ranked in” year. For example, the 2016 rankings above were published in the 2017 edition but ranked in 2015.



14.5 Shanghai Ranking Consultancy: Academic Rankings of World Universities 

In the Academic Rankings of World Universities, only four public universities in the world appear in the top 20, and all four are UC campuses.

The Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU) was created by Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China in 2003 to determine the global standing of Chinese research universities. Since 2009, the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy has published these rankings.

The Shanghai Ranking Consultancy ranks the top 1,200 universities worldwide; their rankings are based entirely on measures of research strength and faculty honors and awards. English-speaking universities, especially those in the United States, tend to dominate the ARWU rankings.

This ranking system emphasizes research outputs, such as total research expenditures. Because research outputs are not normalized by number of faculty, larger institutions tend to rank more highly than smaller ones. Institutions with strong research programs, especially in the sciences, also tend to score higher than those whose major strengths are in the humanities and social sciences.

14.5.1    Shanghai Ranking Consultancy: Academic Rankings of World Universities, 2006 to 2015

  2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Harvard 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Stanford 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2
MIT 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 4 3 3
Berkeley 4 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 4
Yale 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Los Angeles 14 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12
San Diego 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 14 14 14
San Francisco 18 18 18 18 18 17 18 18 18 18
U of Michigan 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 22 22
U of Illinois 25 26 26 25 25 25 25 25 28 29
Santa Barbara 35 35 36 35 32 33 34 35 41 38
Irvine 44 45 46 46 46 48 45 45 47 50
Davis 42 43 48 49 46 48 47 47 55 57
Santa Cruz 102–150 102–150 102–150 102–150 102–150 102–150 101–150 101–150 93 93
Riverside 102–150 102–150 102–150 102–150 102–150 102-150 101–150 101–150 101–150 101-150
U of Virginia 102–150 102–150 95 91 96 102–150 101–150 101–150 101–150 101-150
Univ. at Buffalo 201–300 203–304 201–302 201–302 201–300 201–300 201–300 201–300 201–300 201-300

Note: Campuses ranked below the top 100 are placed into ranges in lieu of an exact ranking.



14.6 Times Higher Education: World University Rankings

The top two public institutions in the Times Higher Education rankings are UC Berkeley and UCLA.

The British-based Times Higher Education (THE) significantly revised its educational rankings in 2011; thus, institutional scores from prior years are not comparable to current rankings. The rankings are based on five “headline” categories: teaching, research, citations, industry income and international outlook.

The 2015-16 edition of THE rankings used a more comprehensive database to measure research productivity, improving coverage of peer-reviewed research not published in English. This change made it possible to obtain a better geographical representation of universities in non-English- speaking countries.

14.6.1 Times Higher Education World University Rankings, 2010–11 to 2015–16

  Reputational Ranking
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Harvard 1 1 1 1 1 1
MIT 2 2 2 2 4 2
Stanford 5 4 6 3 5 3
Berkeley 4 5 5 6 6 6
Yale 9 10 10 8 8 8
Los Angeles 12 9 8 10 13 13
U of Michigan 13 12 12 15 19 14
U of Illinois 21 23 24 23 30 30
San Diego 30 36 34 40 41 35
Davis 38 44 48 51–60 44 45
San Francisco 34 31 40 32 38 42
Santa Barbara 51–60 51–60 51–60 61–70 61–70 71–80

  Overall Ranking
  2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015-16
Harvard 1 2 4 2 2 6
MIT 3 7 5 5 6 5
Stanford 4 2 2 4 4 3
Berkeley 8 10 9 8 8 13
Yale 10 11 11 11 9 12
Los Angeles 11 13 13 12 12 16
U of Michigan 15 18 20 18 17 21
U of Illinois 33 31 33 29 29 36
San Diego 32 33 38 40 41 39
Davis 54 38 44 52 55 44
Santa Barbara 29 35 35 33 37 39
Irvine 49 86 96 93 88 106
Santa Cruz 68 110 122 136 109 144
U of Virginia 72 135 118 112 130 147
Riverside 117 143 154 148 150 167
U at Buffalo     198 176 191 201 –250

Note: a blank denotes not ranked. Campuses in the reputational ranking below the top 50 are placed into ranges in lieu of an exact ranking.



14.7 THE WASHINGTON POST: TOP TRANSFER DESTINATIONS

UCLA enrolls more transfer students than any other school in the top 75 on the U.S. News and World Report list of national universities. UC Davis ranks second, and several other UC campuses are also major transfer destinations.

There are many paths to a bachelor’s degree from an elite university. A university’s commitment to enrolling high numbers of transfer students enables students from a larger variety of educational, developmental and socioeconomic backgrounds to earn four-year degrees. When top-tier four-year institutions are accessible to transfer students, the diversity of the populations served by the schools is better reflected in higher education.

In May 2016, The Washington Post released a ranking of the top 75 U.S. universities according to the number of new transfer students enrolling in fall 2014. UC campuses account for six of the top 15 transfer destinations.

14.7.1    The Washington Post: Top 25 Transfer Destinations, 2016

    Number of new
 transfers enrolled		 Transfer share
of total
Los Angeles 1 3,167 35%
Davis 2 3,138 37%
Ohio State 3 2,606 27%
Rutgers – New Brunswick 4 2,541 28%
Texas A&M U – College Station 5 2,525 19%
San Diego 6 2,461 33%
U Texas – Austin 7 2,325 24%
Berkeley 8 2,187 29%
U Minnesota – Twin Cities 9 2,175 28%
Irvine 10 2,024 27%
U Maryland – College Park 11 2,004 33%
U Florida 12 1,968 23%
U Washington 13 1,730 21%
Michigan State U 14 1,668 17%
Santa Barbara 15 1,592 25%
U Southern California 16 1,435 32%
U Illinois – Urbana Champaign 17 1,331 16%
Clemson U 18 1,293 27%
U Massachusetts – Amherst 19 1,158 20%
U Georgia 20 1,116 18%
U Michigan – Ann Arbor 21 1,041 14%
Virginia Tech 22 958 15%
Indiana U – Bloomington 23 912 11%
U North Carolina – Chapel Hill 24 886 18%
New York U 25 854 13%

The Washington Post analysis is based on the top 75 schools according to the U.S. News and World Report fall 2015 rankings and each institution’s Common Data Set answers for 2014–15.