Top American Research Universities

TheCenter The Top American Research Universities John V. Lombardi Diane D. Craig Elizabeth D. Capaldi Denise S. Gater Sarah L. Mendonça

July 2001

An Annual Report from The Lombardi Program on Measuring University Performance

Copyright 2001, TheCenter at the University of Florida

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 The University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 The American Research University: A Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 American Higher Education and the Research University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Quality Engines: The American Research University Prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 The Competitive Context for Research Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Measuring Institutional Competitiveness for Research Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Ranking and Measuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 The Impact of Enrollment and Medical Schools on Research Competitiveness . . .25 Change in Competitive Performance on Federal Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Part I: The Top American Research Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Universities Ranking in Top 25 Nationally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Universities Ranking in Top 26–50 Nationally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Private Universities Ranking in Top 25 among Privates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Public Universities Ranking in Top 25 among Publics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Private Universities Ranking in Top 26–50 among Privates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Public Universities Ranking in Top 26–50 among Publics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Part II: TheCenter Research Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Private Support and Faculty Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Advanced Training and Undergraduate Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Change (Federal Research, Endowment, Enrollment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Institutional Characteristics and TheCenter Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 Student Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 Part III: The Top 200 Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 Total Research Expenditures (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 Federal Research Expenditures (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 Endowment Assets (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 Annual Giving (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 National Academy Membership (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 Faculty Awards (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108 Doctorates Awarded (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112 Postdoctoral Appointees (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 SAT Scores (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 National Merit and Achievement Scholars (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124 Source Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 Data Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 1

Page 2

Introduction The task of building and sustaining an American research university challenges every member of the institution’s extended community. Progress in this permanent quest requires enthusiasm, commitment, talent, and resources, but it also requires reliable comparative data. The task for universities is to improve, not only measured by what they did last year or the year before, but also in comparison to what their counterparts and competitors at other universities have accomplished. Reference points for comparative success serve the utilitarian purpose of measuring progress. The Top American Research Universities annual report charts the comparative performance of institutions, reflecting our conviction that research university success comes from the effective investment in and management of individual institutions. American universities exist in many different bureaucratic arrangements, and public universities in particular often form parts of complex statewide system structures. Nonetheless, the key decisions about faculty and students that produce successful research universities take place primarily at the campus level. For that reason, this publication focuses on the performance of individual campuses, not of systems, and adjusts the data to reflect the performance of each campus within a system. The Top American Research Universities also presents a categorization of research universities into groups based on their performance on nine measures, as described in the text and in the introduction to the tables. Institutions in the top group rank among the top 25 on all nine of the measures; in the second group they rank in the top 25 on eight measures; and so on. This method does not produce a single ranked list, but instead it reflects our observation that the difference separating these top universities is not sufficiently great to justify making a single, rank-ordered list. We think that the very best universities compete at top levels on most everything they do. Others compete well on some measures but not as well on others. TheCenter groups identify clusters of institutions with roughly comparable performance on a variety of measures. In this year’s report, we have extended our coverage to include not only the

universities that compete among the top 25, but also those that compete in the range 26–50 on at least one of the nine measures. In this edition, we highlight the national competition among universities in the Top American Research University tables, although we also include the tables for the Top Private and Top Public institutions separately, as in the previous report. This focus on the national rankings recognizes that the competition for faculty and students is primarily a single competition in which both public and private universities participate, regardless of their control or ownership. A university’s private or public ownership (or control) influences some institutional characteristics that bear on its competitiveness within the national context, rather than creating independent competitive contexts. In addition to the expanded tables, this edition of The Top American Research Universities also includes data The task for universities for a variety of institutional characteristics that may be is to improve, not only of interest to many observers. We include information measured by what they on those universities that did last year, but also in we define as major research universities with over comparison with their $20 million in federal research expenditures, and competitors. we include data on the top 200 institutions for the measures used in constructing our categories. Each university, however, exists within a unique context and has different interests in data such as these. For this reason, TheCenter provides all of the data in this publication as well as additional tables of related information on its website [http://thecenter.ufl.edu] in two formats. This publication, including the tables, appears as a .pdf file, available for downloading and printing. All of the published data, as well as some additional tables, appear on the website in Microsoft Excel format suitable for downloading and additional analysis. This gives others the opportunity to analyze the data for their own purposes. The website also includes a variety of other information including an extensive bibliography.

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 3

In the text of The Top American Research Universities, we offer a description of a model for the research university, and we use the data as the basis for the discussion of a variety of issues, especially the patterns of change in federal research expenditures over the past decade. We have discovered that the audience for these materials is much wider than we had anticipated, including academic experts, students, public policy administrators, legislators, trustees, alumni, and international scholars and observers. Some of our comments, reflecting the work of many scholars of American higher education, will appear obvious to the experts, although less familiar to those outside the university. In developing this second edition of The Top American Research Universities, we benefited greatly from many suggestions from our colleagues, but

Page 4

special thanks go to the members of our Advisory Board, whom we list on page 147. Their observations, suggestions, and critique have helped us immeasurably. The work reflected in this publication draws on the exceptional support of Ms. Lynne Collis, who manages TheCenter’s administrative services. Without her expertise, dedication, and initiative, this publication would not have appeared. The authors also thank Mr. Gregory A. Harris for his excellent contributions to this project and Ms. Anney Doucette for her careful work with many aspects of the data collection and verification. The Top American Research Universities is a project made possible through the generosity of Mr. Lewis M. Schott in establishing The Lombardi Program on Measuring University Performance. The authors greatly appreciate his confidence and support.

The University The American Research University: A Perspective American Higher Education and the Research University Any effort to summarize American higher education struggles with the large variety of missions, structures, and characteristics represented by the over 4,700 institutions offering some form of postsecondary education. Community colleges, trade schools, denominational colleges, liberal arts institutions, small and large state colleges and universities, elite private colleges and universities, and medical institutions all inhabit overlapping parts of the same educational space. This diversity of institutions represents one of the great strengths of American post-secondary schooling. Institutions exist to serve virtually any student, whatever their preferences, needs, values, and abilities. The system lacks formal, structural elegance, but it more than compensates with its comprehensive scope and its remarkable resilience and dynamism. This lack of formal structure poses a major challenge for those who would analyze, categorize, and evaluate these institutions, because few fit into neat categories suitable for data collection and comparative analysis. Institutions as different as community colleges, research universities, and elite liberal arts colleges teach students a relatively standardized curriculum for the first two years. All undergraduate institutions, from large comprehensive state-supported universities to small privately endowed sectarian colleges, compete for college-bound high school graduates. Although these colleges and universities teach students within the context of a four-year undergraduate curriculum leading to a bachelor’s degree, they nonetheless differ substantially in size, characteristics of student populations, and overall institutional mission. Nationally competitive research takes place at approximately the same scale whether in public institutions with as many as 50,000 students or in small private universities with less than 1,000. No effort to

understand these institutions on a single scale can hope to succeed. The overlapping missions, diverse governance mechanisms, and multiple sources of funding tend to obscure the highly competitive behavior of American higher education. Institutions compete with each other for funding, students, faculty, and recognition. The nature of this competition, more than the specific characteristics of the institutions themselves, defines groups of institutions: liberal arts colleges compete primarily with other liberal arts colleges, comprehensive state institutions compete with others like themselves, research institutions compete with other research universities. Institutions also compete across categories, not only within them. Community colleges and comprehensive state universities often compete for the same students within a defined geographic area. All public institutions in a given state compete with each other for tax-based support. Prestigious public and private universities compete with small elite liberal arts colleges for top students. Some forms of competition, however, define institutions sufficiently to create a category of analytical interest. Research provides a defining characteristic for a The overlapping missions, set of institutions whose performance in many areas diverse governance, and of academic life sets the multiple sources of standards for most of American higher education. funding tend to obscure The definition of a research university for the the highly competitive purposes of this report behavior of American involves two primary characteristics. higher education. • First, these universities compete successfully for federal research funds. Major research institutions spend at least $20 million a year from these sources, while other research institutions spend less. • Second, research universities are regionally accredited institutions whose academic programs award accredited academic degrees. The following figures provide a perspective on this group of institutions. Of the 1,950 non-

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 5

Non-proprietary Institutions Offering BA/BS Degrees (N=1,950)

Institutions with Any Federal Research in 1990–99 (N=617)

Institutions with Over $20M Federal Research in FY 1999 (N=154)

48 604

247

106

370

1346

Private

proprietary postsecondary institutions that offer at least a bachelor’s degree, some 617 reported expenditures from federal sources on research in at least one year during the period 1990–1999. Within this group of institutions that compete for federally sponsored research, only 154 major research universities spent over $20 million on research from federal sources in fiscal year 1999. The Four Research Groups

250

Private (N=247) Public (N=370)

Number of Universities

200

134 150

48 100

41 106

73

50

0

24

87

104

Over $20M

$5–20M

$1–5M

Under $1M

(N=154)

(N=97)

(N=128)

(N=238)

1999 Federal Research

These 154 institutions account for 91% of annual federal research expenditures. The other 463 universities, taken together, account for the other 9% of the total, and our report divides this larger group into three additional categories for some analysis based on the institution’s 1999 federal expenditures. TheCenter has an interest in all research universities and provides data online for all categories of federal research spending [http://thecenter.ufl.edu]. However, this report continues to focus primarily on

Page 6

Public

those institutions with over $20 million in federal research expenditures, as in the previous Top American Research Universities report issued in 2000. The highly evolved and complex American research universities in this top category share many things in common, but they differ significantly in size, structure, organization, and finance. Some have student populations as large as 30,000 to 50,000, while others have fewer than 1,000 students. Some have a majority of their students in undergraduate programs, others have a majority of graduate and professional students, and a few have no undergraduates at all. Research universities operate with significantly different formal organizational structures. Some operate as private, not-for-profit corporations and display clearly defined organizations governed by

Federal Research Market Share by Research Group

Over $20M 91%

$5–20M 6.7% $1–5M 1.9%

9% Total

Under $1M 0.4%

The Research University

self-perpetuating boards. Others operate as public entities under state constitutional or legislative provision with ownership or control assigned to boards of trustees or regents. These boards are selected, appointed, or elected in accord with differing criteria. Some public research universities may share a governing board with other institutions, only some of which may emphasize research. Public research universities also have complex relationships that link them directly to state legislatures and statewide coordinating commissions. On occasion, they have both local and statewide governing boards. These research universities do many things in addition to research, further complicating an analysis of their research performance. As educational institutions, research universities can sustain any number of academic specialties, support a wide array of professional schools, engage in extensive off-campus educational activities in continuing professional education, and perform services for public and private constituencies. Individual universities combine these functions in many different ways, ensuring that no two universities will have identical missions. For all of their complexity, American research universities serve as primary institutions for advancing knowledge in virtually all fields of human activity, from the arts and humanities through the social and behavioral sciences and from the professions to the mathematical, physical, and biological sciences. No university cultivates research in all areas of human inquiry, but there is at least one university with a research program in almost every area of knowledge. The strength of the American research university results from a combination of reinforcing elements. For most institutions, the standard mission includes the education of undergraduate students to become useful and productive citizens in what are traditionally four- or five-year programs; the preparation of graduates in the professions of education, law, medicine, business, engineering, or journalism; and the training of advanced students in Ph.D. programs in a number of specialized fields. Research universities in particular emphasize intensive and extensive research programs in many academic and professional areas. Local, state, and national agencies,

recognizing the high social and economic value of these institutions, provide significant tax-based assistance to private and public universities through research grants, facilities funding, financial aid for students at all levels. In return, the research university generally implements its obligation to the public by producing educated and useful citizens, transferring academic research results into products and services that enhance national prosperity and defense, and engaging the university in a wide range of public service work. Although there is great variation in the methods and techniques, in the mix and balance, and in the success of American research universities in delivering this combination of functions, almost every institution participates in most aspects of this combined activity.

Quality Engines: The American Research University Prototype Even though these institutions demonstrate a bewildering variety in the details of their organization, all of them express a common research university prototype. This prototype models the behavior American research of research universities as organizations, even if, like universities serve as all synthetic constructs, it does not represent the operaprimary institutions tions of any particular instifor advancing knowledge tution in detail. The model presented here in virtually all fields views research universities as organizations with two of human activity. related but relatively independent structures. • The first is an academic core, composed of a group of faculty guilds that have primary responsibility for the academic content and quality of the enterprise. • The second is an administrative shell, responsible for the acquisition and distribution of resources and for the management of the enterprises that support the faculty guilds. The Academic Core: Faculty guilds are the most important part of the university because they define

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 7

and create the university’s academic substance. The guilds enable the university’s many other functions related to teaching and research. Disciplinary considerations define guilds such as chemistry, history, physics, psychology, philosophy, medicine, and law. Moreover, within the university, each Faculty guilds are the faculty guild serves as the local branch of a national most important part guild of the same specialty. For example, all of the profesof the university sors in a university history because they define the department belong to the same national guild, even university’s academic though the local university employs them. The national substance and maintain guild establishes the intellectual standards for their work; its quality. the local university deals with their employment and work assignments. The same holds true for chemists, psychologists, and the members of other guilds. Each guild defines itself in terms of the intellectual methodology that its members apply to their field of study. Historians, for example, have a methodology for the use of historical evidence in the development of explanations about past events. The guild’s definition of standards based on these methods and the evaluation of quality based on the standards are what define the guild’s responsibility. Members of the guild must meet these academic and methodological standards, or the guild will not recognize the validity of their work. As has been the case for all guilds since medieval times, the methodological standards guarantee that the members’ products meet guild criteria. If a guild-certified historian writes a biography of Simón Bolívar, for example, we can have confidence that the interpretation presented uses documents and evidence in accord with the history guild’s standards of accuracy and reliability. The guild does not guarantee the correctness of the resulting interpretation, only that the guild-certified historian used appropriate methodology properly in ways that permit other expert members of the guild to review and validate that work.

Page 8

The same is true in science, which perhaps offers a better illustration. Scientists have precise methodologies, both for doing their work and for validating its results. When physicists, for example, present the results of their work, most people lack the expertise to evaluate the scientific validity of the process used to arrive at the announced result. Instead, the public relies on a validation by the physics guild before accepting the result as a reliable scientific finding. Each guild has its own process for validating the work done by its members and for reviewing results presented by aspirants for membership or advancement in the guild. All guilds, however, rely on a variation of the peer review system that mobilizes the talents of expert guild members to validate the work of other guild members. This process often involves experts replicating the experiments and a peer review of results before presentation to the public through publication. Whatever the process, however, the guild sets and enforces the standards for the field to ensure the quality of guild-certified results. The analytical methodology, more than the subject matter studied, distinguishes one guild from another. For example, although historians and sociologists study similar phenomena (revolution, poverty, social change), they employ significantly different methodologies, and these differences separate the sociologists’ guild from the historians’ guild. The expanding range of knowledge constantly produces new information and suggests new explanations. These, in turn, often require new methodologies. Over time, new guilds emerge with definable methodologies that serve to advance understanding. In other cases, efforts to create new guilds do not succeed because no coherent, intellectually sound, and distinct methodology emerges. The guild does not pass judgment primarily on whether a scholar’s idea is right or wrong, but rather it ensures that scholarly ideas receive rigorous analysis and proof regardless of the political or personal interests that may surround them. Scientists may believe that they have found the key to eternal life, but public acceptance of this result requires

Quality Engines

validation by other members of the appropriate science guilds through a critical review according to applicable methodological standards. The guilds also define the university’s undergraduate curriculum in a negotiated conversation with other guilds. This negotiation establishes the content and delivery of knowledge contained in the traditional frame of four- or five-year undergraduate degree programs. Each component of this degree reflects guild-certified knowledge. Doctoral and other advanced degree programs belong exclusively to the guilds. Finally, the guild controls the acquisition, promotion, tenure, and retention of faculty. Although other actors in the university (administrators, union officials, students, and others) influence this process in various ways, the guild holds primary responsibility for the quality of the faculty. Because their own members hire and retain their successors, guilds behave as self-replicating organizations. If the guilds replicate themselves at the same quality level, the university overall will maintain its current level of quality. If they replace themselves at a lower level, the university declines, and if they hire their replacements at a higher level of quality, the university improves. Research universities pay close attention to guild management of faculty talent, because they know that the university’s quality and productivity depend on the faculty. A diagram of the core structure of the model research university would show a number of guilds, each separate from the others, linked by their common participation in the instructional enterprise and by their common concern for the support and promotion of research. They would appear as separate entities because the members of one guild cannot generally participate in the work of another except as guests or in jointly owned interdisciplinary projects. Members of one guild may not normally transfer their academic standing directly to another guild without a complete review of their qualifications by the other guild. The guilds would also appear as separate entities to emphasize that they belong intellectually more to their national guild than to their local university. This feature of guild behavior requires some

discussion. The national guild sets the same methodological standards for determining the quality and reliability of its products everywhere. Local guilds apply these same methodological standards, whether they operate in New York or Texas, Minnesota or California. However, the level of productivity and quality required for membership by each local guild will vary from university to university. In major research universities, as an example, the local history guilds will require new members to possess not only a Ph.D. with a dissertation completed and approved according to the standards of the guild, but also a record of publication in significant peer-reviewed journals and the promise of a major scholarly book. For permanent status within The university’s these high-quality local guilds, historians will academic standing is the publish at least two major peer-reviewed books. At aggregate result of the a comprehensive state universuccess of the guilds in sity, the level of research quality and productivity the recruitment and expected by the local history guild for permanent status retention of faculty. will include perhaps only the completion of a Ph.D. and the publication of one or two peer-reviewed articles. A university’s quality and competitiveness depend on the quality and competitiveness of its faculty, and the local guild sets the level of performance for new and continuing faculty members. The university’s academic standing, then, is the aggregate result of the success of each of these local guilds in the recruitment and retention of faculty. This model of guild behavior applies to competitive research universities and sets the standards for almost all other colleges and universities. The Administrative Shell: The second structure within the American research university is the administrative shell. Most observers see the shell when they first encounter the university. The shell contains a traditional corporate structure: hierarchical and orderly, with a chain of command as well as the other accouterments of modern corporate America. It provides the formal, legal governance

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 9

mechanism of the university, including a board of trustees or regents, a president, and vice presidents, deans, other administrators, and members of faculty senates who carry out corporate line and staff functions on behalf of the university and manage governance as well as administrative issues. To most people, this is the university’s management. In one sense, this is true. The board owns the university. The president is legally responsible for the institution’s management. The vice The criteria for presidents and deans report through an administrative distributing money create hierarchy. The faculty senate approves new degrees and much stronger incentives curricular changes. for guild behavior than At the same time, the people in the shell do not do strategic plans or actually do the work that makes the university valuable. mission statements. That work takes place primarily in the guilds or under guild supervision. The shell mobilizes and distributes resources that support the work of the guilds, and it protects the guilds from harmful external forces. The shell manages the interactions between guilds. Most importantly, the shell manages the university’s money and creates the incentives that motivate guild behavior. Participants in the administrative shell typically demonstrate a fondness for public displays of institutional homogeneity, as expressed in the form of mission statements, strategic plans, and the like. These high-minded products generally have minor impact on the guilds and their work — unless the shell administrators match these plans with the incentives created by the distribution of money. The criteria for distributing money create much stronger incentives for guild behavior than do strategic plans and mission statements articulated by institutional leaders. Deans and department chairs occupy a special intermediate role between the functions of the shell and those of the core guilds. While deans, and chairs to a somewhat lesser extent, serve as administrative officers in the formal organization of the university, they serve more as guild representatives to the shell

Page 10

than as administrative managers of the core. Deans receive their appointments from vice presidents and presidents, and they recognize their responsibility to these shell officers. Deans also know that their success depends on their ability to earn and retain the respect and support of their fellow guild members and to successfully represent guild interests in the competition for resources managed by the shell organization. Department and program chairs respond even more closely to the interests of their guild colleagues than do deans. We might think of deans and chairs as “guild masters,” for they manage the operation of the guilds both on behalf of the guild members and on behalf of the shell organization. In this model, it is important to focus on institutional purpose. Some might say that the research university produces students, research products, economic development, and public service. While the university does produce these things, the delivery of goods and services to society is actually a secondary benefit from the university’s primary pursuit of internal quality, as represented by research and students. Quality Engines: Research universities, in our view, exist to accumulate the highest level and the greatest amount of internal academic quality possible. The goal is to gather inside the university the most research-productive faculty, the brightest students, and the highest-quality academic and cultural environment achievable. Although the research university delivers a wide variety of products to external constituencies, such as graduates, technology, economic development, and public service, its primary focus is on the creation of internal quality. This is why we call research universities “quality engines.” In pursuing the goal of maximum internal quality, the research university will almost automatically graduate its students, promote economic development, and serve the public interest. However, the production of these goods and services does not drive university success, although it may motivate others to help the institution to succeed. The model clearly illustrates a relationship between the academic core of guilds and the university’s shell. The shell’s primary responsibility is to

Quality Engines

find the money needed to compete effectively for the best faculty (including all of the subsidies for their research) and for the best students (including all of the amenities and academic and educational enhancements that attract them). The shell organizes structures and systems to raise private endowments and gifts, to lobby for public funds, to compete for federal dollars, to seek foundation revenue, and to create a hospitable and supportive academic and cultural environment. The shell raises this money and creates this environment so that the guilds succeed in recruiting and retaining quality faculty, in subsidizing research, and in promoting similar activities that create internal quality. Shell participants often take a more direct role in the recruitment and retention of undergraduate students, in whom the guild has less of a direct interest. The interactions between the guilds and the shell, and also between the shell and the external environment, are much more complex and more closely interrelated than presented here. Nonetheless, the model of quality engines focuses our attention on the research university’s revenue-seeking behavior in support of the guild’s success and by extension the institution’s success in the competition for quality. The model sees the university as an enterprise that is its own primary customer. On the surface, this appears a bit contradictory, since the revenue that supports the university comes from outside the institution and the institution organizes itself to capture relentlessly as much revenue from all of these sources as possible. Most observers would assume that the university sells a product or service directly to those who provide it with money. While the university does provide value to those who pay, the process that it uses to provide the value and the mechanisms for payment dilute much of the relationship between buyer and seller that characterizes transactions in the for-profit world. For example, research universities sell the talent of their research faculty and staff to the federal government to do research that is in the national interest. At the same time, universities also purchase access to (and a competitive advantage in) the federal

competition for grants through subsidies of research facilities and talent. The universities compete against each other for federal grants, but they also invest their internal funds heavily for the opportunity to compete. The funds that universities use to subsidize the competition for federal research The university come from annual giving, earnings on endowment, maximizes its revenue state agencies, returns on to purchase quality patents and licenses, internal savings, and other research, quality surplus-generating activities of the institution. students, quality Instead of seeing the university as a producer of goods faculty, and a quality and services for an external academic environment. competitive marketplace, we can think of the university as a consumer of the quality that it purchases from the external marketplace. In this view, the university maximizes its revenue from all sources to purchase quality research, quality students, quality faculty, and a quality academic environment. It then uses the existence of this quality environment to attract additional external investors who buy access to the environment and contribute to its creation rather than purchasing ownership of any particular university product. The goal of research universities, then, is to accumulate the highest level and the largest amount of quality it can through the competitive purchase of scarce quality elements. Whether the institution is an elite private institution with a $14 billion endowment and $266 million of federally funded research or a public institution just barely over the $20 million level of federal research with an endowment of only $15 million, they behave in remarkably similar ways. The details of the revenue-seeking behavior of individual universities vary depending on circumstances, history, opportunities, and private or public control. TheCenter’s annual reports track the performance of research universities as they pursue the maximum accumulation of research and undergraduate student quality.

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 11

The Competitive Context for Research Universities The research university’s essential elements are scarce. Universities and their people live in an environment of competition for everything: outstanding students, good grades, faculty positions, promotion and tenure, publication opportunities, grants, research and teaching space, and resources to support academic specialties are a few examples. The most important competition for faculty begins with the hiring process, when one open position attracts many applicants but the applicant pool contains only a few top candidates. Potential faculty members compete with each other to appear in the top group of aspiring research faculty, and universities compete with each other to purchase the services of the individuals in the top group. Availability of Research and Teaching Talent: The discussion of the process for recruiting, promoting, tenuring, and retaining faculty is long, and we will not engage it fully here. For our purposes in charting the performance of research universities, a critical distinction about this competition for the best faculty requires emphasis. Research university competition for faculty is about research, not about teaching. Much confusion and rhetoric attaches to this view, as observers of university life argue about the relative merits of teachResearch talent and ing and research. For our purposes, this argument is productivity are much beside the point. The issue less available and much is not whether teaching or research has more intrinsic less predictable than is value, but whether teaching talent is more plentiful teaching talent. than research talent. Research talent and productivity is much less available and much less predictable than teaching talent, and this difference determines the university’s focus on research rather than teaching in the acquisition and management of faculty. Although teaching requires skill, knowledge, creativity, and commitment, this is not the issue. The issue is that almost all faculty with the basic credentials for a research university appointment

Page 12

(a Ph.D. or its equivalent and a reasonable record of scholarly accomplishment) will teach well. The likelihood is high that a university, in hiring promising research faculty members, will also acquire excellent teachers. Like teaching, research also requires skill, knowledge, creativity, and commitment, but research talent is scarce. The guilds cannot predict with high levels of confidence which of the most promising research graduates of the best doctoral programs in the country will sustain a high level of nationally competitive research productivity over a working career. By selecting and reviewing credentials carefully, the guild can improve its chances of hiring and retaining people who will indeed perform as researchers throughout their careers, but the risk nonetheless remains substantial. As time goes on, even with the most careful screening, the proportion of a cohort of promising faculty who remain productive in research will decline. A few will not produce nationally competitive research at all; many will produce well for six to eight years and then cease to compete at national levels. Others will create sustained and productive research programs and will maintain their vitality and competitiveness over a career of thirty or more years. By contrast, in any given cohort of faculty hired by a research university, all but a very few will teach effectively, and many will teach superbly for the thirty or more years of their careers. From a management perspective, this creates a problem, because the labor force required for universities to succeed in the national research competition is relatively inflexible. Once the long six-year period of probation ends, faculty become permanent university employees. Tenure confers this security of employment and is the structure that creates an inflexible labor force, but it is also a requirement for a successful university research enterprise. The topic of tenure is complex and has an extensive and often polemical literature. Suffice it to say here that university research that extends human knowledge does not prosper where the investigator’s livelihood is dependent on evaluations of short-term success. The pursuit of short-term research results often leads people to work on the things they already

The Competitive Context

know well rather than on the things they do not know. The pursuit of new knowledge entails a substantial risk of being wrong (scholars can only be right all of the time if they already know the answers to the questions they ask). The employment security of tenure is a necessary requirement to encourage this risky exploration of the unknown, and it represents a cost in the university’s support of research. Universities compete with each other by paying a premium in the faculty marketplace for successful research faculty at various stages in their careers because such individuals are scarce. Universities pay almost no premium for successful teaching faculty at any stage in their careers because such individuals are abundant. Indeed, the emergence of a lively market in inexpensive adjunct and part-time teaching talent indicates a negative premium for teaching experience. The limited availability of research talent and the competition to acquire this talent explain why the conversation about mobilizing resources for institutional quality focuses primarily on the competition for and support of research faculty. Supporting Research Competition: This model of research universities as quality engines highlights the close relationship between competitive success and money. Money makes it possible for the institutions to compete for the scarce talent of research faculty and to support all of the elements of plant, equipment, personnel, and university environment that they require. University people see themselves as pursuing a higher mission and do not like to think of themselves as part of enterprises that generate and spend revenue. Yet in no university does the higher mission prosper without the investment of money in people, plant, and equipment. The centrality of money to this competition affects every single program, whether it is fine arts and music or physics and chemistry. The art department needs studio space and materials; the music school needs rehearsal space, instruments, and recording equipment. The physics and chemistry departments require laboratory space and scientific instruments. The best faculty in every guild want

nationally competitive salaries, and the best students want nationally competitive undergraduate programs and financial aid packages. The quality engine’s success depends in the first instance on its ability to generate money. All things being equal, the more money the university can invest effectively in the competition for quality, the better it will become. Research university shells, as predicted by our model, organize the mechanisms for maximizing revenue. The competition among All things being equal, universities for people and resources is fierce. If a the more money the research project will take university can invest five years to develop, the university that starts first effectively in the will finish first. The university that gets the three competition for quality, best faculty in the world in the better it will become. a particular field will have a competitive edge. While research faculty move from institution to institution for higher salaries and better research support, they do not move every year. If the faculty with the critical talent needed for a research project moved last year, they will not likely move this year. The advantage in the competition goes to those who have the money today to buy the services of talented people and the equipment and resources needed. What matters most for the research university is not its total assets or the aggregate value of its endowment, buildings, and equipment. Rather, what matters most is the cash generated by these assets and other activities, which the university can immediately spend to compete. Competitive university research operates at the outside edges of human knowledge, and small differences in talent and ability often make big differences in research success. If a university fails to recruit the top quantum physicists for its project, it will find itself disadvantaged in competing against the university that has those top physicists. The disadvantage will rapidly become serious as the competing university moves quickly ahead in the process of discovery.

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 13

Research is also a high-risk business, and institutions find it difficult to predict exactly which research investment will produce the most competitive result in the medium term of five to ten years. The larger the cash flow that a university can mobilize to invest in different research initiatives, the greater the chance that it will have successful results, and the better its ability to withstand failures. Individual scientific research programs may have a lifespan of ten years, and in that time the instituUniversities frequently tion will invest many millions from its own resources (in use decision mechanisms addition to whatever it can that rely primarily on win in grants and external support) for salaries, space, traditions, politics, or equipment, and support personnel. If it spends personal preferences that its revenue well, the university will see returns on this limit the effective use of investment in the form of rational criteria. discoveries, publications, grants, contracts, and scholarly reputation. If it invests ineffectively, it will see its quality decline despite that investment. Universities encounter significant challenges in managing the institution’s investment choices. Universities and their faculty engage in many activities, produce many things, and have multiple constituencies. Every activity can benefit from the investment of additional dollars, and all activities have internal and external support groups that argue for additional investment in their preferred activity. Almost all of these activities reflect quality programs. As the model would predict, the process for making investment decisions in a university is complex. This is because the guilds have their own interests centered on guild advancement, and the shell often lacks the technical and political support to make effective investment choices. Deans and chairs represent not the interests of the university but those of the guilds or collections of guilds under their administration. Pressures from both the academic core and the external constituencies of revenue

Page 14

providers, combined with often remarkably poor management data, inhibit the effective use of resources to build competitive quality. Universities frequently use decision mechanisms that reflect the complicated relationships of their many constituencies and that rely primarily on traditions, politics, or personal preferences. These common mechanisms limit the effective use of the rational criteria that will guide the institution to identify the optimal choice for acquiring internal quality. When a university has large amounts of discretionary revenue, it can often afford ineffective systems and nonetheless remain competitive. However, universities with fewer resources will find that these ineffective decision methods inhibit their efforts to improve. Decisions about spending money have a disproportionate impact on research because research is a money-losing proposition with significant multiplier effects. Universities must generate as much revenue as possible so that they can buy as much quality research as possible. Each investment of internal funds creates the opportunity to acquire additional external funds in support of research. Good investments create large multipliers and research grows rapidly; poor investments have small multipliers and produce much slower growth. Research, even though it can serve as a multiplier, creates an expense, not a surplus. Although externally funded grants and contracts are large items in any research university’s revenue stream, they represent the multiplier effect of the additional university funds that these projects always require to pay their full cost. Some of these required payments from internal resources appear explicitly: for example, underpayment for indirect costs is a characteristic of federal, state, and especially foundation sponsored projects. Although the effective recovery of indirect costs varies from institution to institution, no university recovers the full audited costs of research. The difference between the audited and the reimbursed expenses is a cost to the university of the successful competition for grant-funded research projects. Universities subsidize research in many other ways. Released time from teaching for faculty who

The Competitive Context

do research in the humanities, social sciences, arts, and professions (fields with fewer substantial external grants) is a cost of research for the university. Funded grants from federal and other agencies often require an explicit university payment from internal funds, called “cost sharing,” as a condition for acquiring the grant. The competition for quality human resources impels universities to fund endowed positions for research faculty, the cost of which they rarely charge in full to research grants. Institutions also subsidize graduate students through stipends both to attract the quality research faculty who teach them and to provide talented labor for research projects. The direct competition for research faculty often involves even larger subsidies. When a university succeeds in attracting a highly productive faculty member in the sciences from another institution, for example, the recruitment package usually includes many expenses beyond the individual’s increased salary and benefits. The university will pay for the cost of moving the scientist’s laboratory to the new university, the cost of laboratory renovations and set up, the cost of new equipment to replace equipment belonging to the prior institution. It will also pay to acquire the newly hired faculty member’s students and assistants, costs that include moving them and setting up their research space. Universities do this because the newly acquired faculty member’s team will bring larger and more significant research grants to the university, thereby increasing institutional quality. The institution also knows that it will never recover most of these relocation costs. Instead, the increased research grants and contracts brought by the newly acquired faculty member will require additional subsidies. The gain is in the acquisition of internal quality for the institution, thus improving the multiplier of university investments in research, but the university must first generate the revenue that it needs to invest in this quality. As the quality engine model shows, university success comes from the ability to spend wisely an ever-increasing revenue stream. For a research university, spending it well means increasing research productivity by acquiring the best faculty and

programs, competing successfully for the most prestigious grants, and ultimately, publishing the most significant advances in the arts, humanities, social sciences, professions, and sciences. Universities and colleges The Undergraduate Competition: Competition sell undergraduate among research universities also includes an aggressive education primarily as effort in the teaching enteran experienced process prise. While the research competition focuses on the rather than as a acquisition of scarce faculty research talent, undergradupurchased product. ate programs compete for the limited number of top-quality students. The perceived quality of a university’s undergraduate program depends in considerable measure on the quality of its student body. The better the quality of students that the university can recruit, the better the quality of undergraduate program it will have. This assumption about undergraduate quality is an important reality of the university marketplace. The undergraduate competition focuses primarily on non-academic issues that parents and students assume are relevant to the educational experience. This is an interesting phenomenon because undergraduate education is ostensibly about acquiring the defined body of knowledge that the degree certifies. If we decompose undergraduate education into its component parts, however, we find that the formal academic curriculum follows a relatively standard form at most universities and resembles a commodity product. This is true because accreditation agencies, financial aid organizations, public regulatory agencies, legislatures, and consumers of undergraduate education prefer a relatively standardized curriculum. Over time, the formal content of the undergraduate degree has tended towards a high degree of standard content from one university to another. While the curriculum may vary in terms of electives and the degree of emphasis placed on science, humanities, ethics, or religion, the basic content of a four- or five-year bachelor’s degree has become

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 15

almost a commodity product, even if the way it is delivered and the faculty who deliver it vary significantly from institution to institution. In addition, even though the quality of the undergraduate content and the quality of the teaching may differ from institution to institution, the consumers generally cannot easily recognize these differences directly. Undergraduate consumers do not constitute repeat buyers in the marketplace for the most part. The differences in quality from institution to institution, while perhaps significant in some instances, have no obvious external measure. Instead, consumers look for indirect measures of presumed academic quality. As a result, universities tend to compete for students based more on the quality of the experience that students will receive at the university while pursuing the standard curricular structure, rather than on highly differentiated content within the curriculum. Without clear indicators Universities and colleges sell undergraduate education of undergraduate primarily as an experienced process rather than as a purquality, consumers chased product. They issue take the quality of a token of successful participation in that process — the students as a signal degree or diploma — but the degree certifies participation of quality content. that meets relatively generic standards and does not necessarily guarantee a particular result or a defined level of competence. Different participants will take away different results from the experience, even though they all receive the same degree. Universities and colleges imply that the degree represents a product containing a measurable and standard amount of education or knowledge. Efforts to measure this learning in some clear and reliable way have so far failed to establish a definition of the content of a standard undergraduate degree. The apparent commodity characteristic of the content and the difficulty of measuring the result of the process lead universities to compete for students based on the quality and variety of experiences and opportunities that the process provides.

Page 16

As is the case with all providers of name-brand commodities, universities invest heavily in differentiating the presentation and the context of their undergraduate process to compete for quality students. The differentiation involves such things as smaller classes, enhanced extracurricular activities, and elaborate entertainment for participants through sports, art, music, theater, and similar amenities. Universities enrich the basic commodity content with learning experiences such as overseas campuses, honors programs, off-campus fieldwork, internships, and individualized study. Universities offer a wide range of experiences to accompany the commodity content by providing activities such as leadership opportunities in clubs and student government. They offer special non-academic services such as psychological counseling and travel opportunities, as well as elaborate recreation, intramural sports, and fitness programs. Success in this competition comes from attracting a high-quality student population to the campus. This is a self-reinforcing phenomenon. Without clear and direct indicators of quality, consumers take the quality of enrolled students as one of the most important signals of quality content. The high quality of existing students attracts high-quality applicants, and from this group the university can select an even higher-quality student body. All of this activity in pursuit of the quality student costs money. Enhanced facilities consume revenue. High-quality students expect preferential treatment in the form of tuition discounts and other financial aid considerations. In large, public universities with low tuition, a tuition discount is not a major benefit, but special housing, small classes for honors students, and special extracurricular opportunities all cost money and help to attract the best students. Indeed, the competitiveness of the honors programs at public institutions is such that their admissions standards are often higher than those at most elite private colleges (and of course much higher than the general admission standards of the public institution itself). The undergraduate financial model that supports this competition varies by institutional control.

The Competitive Context

Private institutions use substantial subsidies drawn from endowment income and annual gifts to support the tuition discounts that attract the best students. This limits the size of the student body that they can support. Public universities, with taxsupported payments for instruction, often respond to the political process and state funding systems when setting enrollments. Public institutions use their discretionary dollars to create special programs and enrich the educational experience that they offer to the most desirable students. The undergraduate financial system depends less on the sale of admission to students and more on the acquisition of funds from multiple sources to support the experience of students. Many who do not participate directly in undergraduate education nonetheless pay for its success. Some funding comes by virtue of social policies such as state and federal payments for student financial aid. Alumni and other private individuals contribute to scholarships and programs for undergraduates because they value a continuing identification with the undergraduate experience. Others support quality undergraduate programs through bequests, endowments, and capital gifts that secure the immortality of permanent recognition. The motives for these purchasers of undergraduate quality are many, but each purchase recognizes value in the process, although many of those who contribute to the cost of undergraduate education (state and federal legislators and private donors in particular) do not actually receive a direct benefit. Colleges and universities invest heavily in enhancements to the undergraduate experience, because they know that the quality of students and of student life attracts other students and signals the overall quality of the institution to donors, alumni, faculty, legislators, and others. For the same reasons, colleges and universities invest in elegant campuses, ivy-covered buildings, student recreation facilities, cultural entertainment programs, alumni halls, intercollegiate sports, and other non-academic features of college life. The techniques used to fund the endless additions to the undergraduate process and to enhance the physical and experiential elements of college life vary among institutions, but

the drive to generate revenue for investment in this competition for high-quality students is visible in all institutional types. The Combination of Undergraduate and Research Competition: High-quality research Research universities, by universities compete directly with the single-function, elite virtue of the complexity undergraduate colleges for the scarce talent of superior stuof their activities, dents. It is no surprise, then, cross-subsidize research to discover that the undergraduate part of the research from teaching and university functions in ways that mimic the elite college. teaching from research. However, where the elite college emphasizes the benefits of a smaller size, the research universities tend to emphasize the benefits of their nationally preeminent research faculty and the breadth of their offerings. In this competition for quality undergraduates, the research university has some advantages. Research universities, by virtue of the complexity of their activities, find ways to cross-subsidize research from teaching, and teaching from research. The most obvious example involves the physical plant. Facilities that the university builds for research often support some forms of teaching as well, either through laboratory use or by housing faculty who teach. Similarly, facilities constructed in support of teaching also house faculty who conduct research. Libraries serve both teaching and research, but the support of a research program allows a much larger and richer library for undergraduates than the university could afford based on its undergraduate program alone. At the same time, in public universities, tax-generated funding for libraries often follows formulas based on enrollment, and the existence of a larger undergraduate population may make possible a richer research library than the university could afford on the basis of its research activity alone. Computing resources, like libraries, often have a scale in support of teaching and research that they could not reach based on one or the other alone. The most important shared element, of course, is the faculty. Research universities can have a larger

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 17

faculty than they could justify by the teaching mission alone, because the institution subsidizes a portion of faculty time for research purposes and competes for research dollars that sustain additional parts of the faculty’s costs. The university will not necessarily have more faculty members teaching smaller classes. Instead, the students will have the opportunity to engage a wider range of high-quality research faculty talent. The key distinction is the word “opportunity.” In the competition that surrounds the standard content of undergraduate education, the opportunity for participation is often just as important as a student actually engaging research faculty. Many students do not care to engage faculty beyond the minimum requirements, while others anticipate Some institutions avoid that they will engage but do not actually do so. confronting the data, Research faculty may not but those who seek teach many of the large, lower-division undergraduate improvement know that courses, but they frequently teach upper-division courses they must monitor the for majors. As a result, students in general may not have numbers reflecting their many encounters with distincompetitive position. guished research faculty, but they usually will have at least some encounters, thus validating the opportunity for participation. Both the presence of the research enterprise and the high national visibility of such activity enhance the institution’s ability to generate revenue from other sources in support of undergraduate education. Donors, for example, in giving to scholarships and other funds that the university uses to recruit the best undergraduate students, may be responding just as much to the institution’s research reputation as they are to the actual quality of the undergraduate program. Conversely, undergraduate education also supports research. The best research faculty often value their membership in an academic community that includes quality undergraduate programs and student life. They seek an academic environment

Page 18

that includes sports facilities, recreation, music, fine arts, and other entertainment and culture brought by the existence of the quality undergraduate experience. All faculty value their membership in a university community that they perceive to be intellectually elite, and the quality of the undergraduates is one of the tokens of elite status that universities use in recruiting stellar faculty. Many research faculty also seek the opportunity to teach talented undergraduates. In some circumstances, the relationship between undergraduate education and research is more direct and revenue-related. In public universities, the undergraduate mission — seen by state agencies as a primary activity — often generates an amount of revenue that exceeds the direct cost of undergraduate education. In such cases, undergraduate students become a profit center, generating revenue above their costs that the university can then reinvest to subsidize quality research. States sometimes fund universities based on formulas that anticipate providing the university with some research support for every undergraduate student enrolled. This reflects the belief that faculty research contributes to the quality of undergraduate education. As mentioned above, states often use formulas based on undergraduate enrollment in funding facilities for infrastructure, library, or computing, thus creating a subsidy for research facilities at the same time. This revenue synergy between teaching and research at public universities offsets their relatively small endowments as compared to their private university competitors. It also helps to explain the relatively large size of undergraduate populations at public research institutions. In a private institution, which lacks publicly funded subsidies for education, the size of the undergraduate population is more a function of the revenue available to subsidize quality students. Increasing the size of the student body usually does not increase available revenue, especially if the university must pay more to educate the students than their discounted tuition can cover. The drive to acquire quality students and research faculty creates a universal imperative: to generate the revenue needed to compete for these scarce but

The Competitive Context

essential elements. The university, represented by its shell structure, organizes its systems into a revenuegenerating organization on behalf of faculty research and student quality. In this competition, institutions require both the availability of the revenue and its effective investment to produce a top American research university.

Measuring Institutional Competitiveness for Research Universities Ranking and Measuring The operation of research universities is a required topic for everyone interested in improving institutional performance. Often, the rhetoric of improvement implies a positive-sum game in which everyone can improve by doing the right thing. In one sense, this is true, for every university can improve its internal operations and enhance its performance as a result. The message of positive-sum improvement, however, implies that the choice of what to improve is a local concern. If every university could improve without regard to other participants in the higher education environment, then improvement relative to others would not be particularly important. The significant question would then be internal: how well does the institution perform on whatever internal agenda it defines? University improvement programs often appear in this format, proposing to enhance some aspect of the local environment as if what happens elsewhere is of minor concern or serves primarily as a source of examples of desirable programs and activities. The advantage of this perspective is that such improvement programs generally have weak mechanisms for determining success or failure, since any change can appear to be beneficial. Its inherent flaw, however, is that it ignores the reality of competition for scarce but essential resources. As the quality engine model shows, quality elements are scarce, and universities acquire them through competition against other institutions.

Competition for students, faculty, and research defines the performance of the research university. Some institutions may prefer to avoid confronting the data that describe their success in this competition; however, those who seek improvement know that they must monitor the numbers reflecting their competitive position. Universities and their constituents often focus on process issues rather than on performance. They worry about the process for distributing revenue, for hiring faculty, and for recruiting students. They pay much less attention to the results and especially to the comparative results. However, if the process for distributing revenue to the guilds produces internal harmony and high levels of participation but fails to improve either undergraduate quality or research performance, then it is actually a failed process, regardless of the state of internal harmony. Sustaining undergraduate programs and research at nationally competitive levels of quality and productivity requires constant measurement, close attention to revenues and expenditures, and close faculty and administrative management. A few universities perform at top competitive levels; others compete more effectively in some things and less so in others. TheCenter’s data identify some of the characteristics of the institutions that excel in this national competition. The data in this publication (presented in more detail online) display these characteristics. Institutions are often frustrated by the lack of tools The drive to acquire that are currently available for measuring their success in quality students and the competition for faculty, students, and dollars. In part, research creates a this is the result of the locauniversal imperative: tion of universities within corporate space. As not-forto generate the revenue profit enterprises, they enjoy a self-justifying existence needed to compete for that requires them to provide these scarce but essential only a limited number of validated references to the pubelements. lic. Although universities provide an endless stream of

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 19

reports and surveys to external agencies and governing organAlthough universities izations, these rarely offer the complain bitterly about data necessary for effective management or for reliable the unreliable nature of institutional comparison. Detailed, standardized rankings, they advertise information does exist for a variety of accounting their own success in purposes that are useful for spurious rankings with demonstrating the fulfillment of the institution’s enthusiasm. fiduciary responsibilities, but these data do not usually serve a useful management purpose. Systems for ranking and classifying universities abound, and many of these systems use data that are unreliable or inappropriate for this purpose. Many rankings attempt to capture in one number an aggregate evaluation of the institution’s worth relative to others. No currently available data offer sufficient reliability or coverage to accomplish this task. The widely varying results from year to year of the most popular of these rankings, outlined in a paper published online by TheCenter, offer eloquent testimony to the unreliability of the measures, since colleges and universities in the top categories rarely change their competitive performance significantly from one year to the next. These popular rankings will often move institutions up and down in ways that do not reflect real changes in performance. In addition, universities compete in the marketplace of public opinion based on prestige or reputation, which is often a highly subjective evaluation. Prestige is a form of name-brand recognition derived from historical visibility, from promotional campaigns that project institutional identity, and from the halo effect of real accomplishments. As a result, colleges and universities emphasize what is unique and different in their environment. They collect information that identifies them as unique in a comparative context. Special characteristics demonstrated by institutionally unique data are a hallmark of much university-generated public relations information. Prestige, or reputation, also reflects past behavior and publicity more than current

Page 20

performance, and its unreliability severely limits the validity of rankings that use reputation as an indicator. Various national groups publish many rankings of universities, colleges, and programs, and these rankings fill a vacuum created by the inability of universities to agree on standard, validated measures of performance or on common criteria for judging competitiveness. Although many universities complain bitterly about the unreliable nature of the rankings (and they truly are often quite unreliable), these same universities nonetheless advertise their own success in spurious rankings with great enthusiasm. In the competition for the best students and faculty, universities embrace positive rankings in the effort to enhance their reputations. They also use positive rankings from virtually any source to persuade donors and other revenue providers that the institution’s unique and valuable mission deserves a gift or grant or additional state or federal subsidy. The highly publicized but methodologically questionable rankings serve this purpose. They create an illusion of distinction and differentiation, offer a presumably impartial validation of qualities promoted by the institution, and create an opportunity for self-promotion that outsiders find difficult to challenge and that insiders find difficult to resist. Within the many rankings done by organizations with different purposes and using different methodologies, universities can usually find at least one that ranks them highly on some criteria. These rankings, in spite of their visibility, do not help university managers, although they may indeed help the public relations effort. No business, not-for-profit or otherwise, can allow promotional materials alone to serve as accurate measures of its competitive success. To do so is to forfeit the opportunity to improve the university’s performance. Without clear measurement and a commitment to competitive success, universities tend to replicate themselves at the same level (or at slightly declining levels) of performance. Absent institutional commitment, the external competition for the best students and faculty will slowly erode a university’s quality. Beyond the minimal requirements of enrollment

Ranking and Measuring

and meeting the institution’s steady state financial commitments, nothing in the external environment compels a self-generating research university to become better than it already is. The drive to compete at a high level generally comes from within the institution. For research universities, the risks inherent in unmeasured management are significant. This is because success is so heavily dependent on the institution’s ability to generate the money for effective investment in research and student subsidies. An institution that manages its money poorly loses the opportunity to generate surpluses to invest in research and student quality. An institution that raises too little endowment to generate income or inadequate annual giving to sustain its subsidies, for example, will eventually fail to maintain its market share in the research competition, thus losing its competitive edge in recruiting the best students. An institution that invests without measuring results will waste its resources. In the competition for quality undergraduates and research performance, the total size of the university’s budget does not matter as much as the way that the institution uses its money. If a large institution with a budget in excess of a billion dollars spends large portions of its revenue on activities that are unrelated to research or undergraduate quality, it will have a less competitive research university than a much smaller institution that spends most of its money on research and undergraduate quality. The first requirement for a successful research university is to generate revenue. The second requirement is to spend it well. The detailed and specific methods that universities use internally to make good choices vary from place to place and from time to time, but a number of measures do exist that serve as reasonably reliable indicators of an institution’s competitiveness in the national marketplace. A discussion of these measures appears below. Defining the Competition: Although the quality engine model depicts research universities operating two theoretically separable economies for teaching and research, most institutional accounting systems do not separate the revenue and expenses clearly enough to analyze these economies separately.

Rather than trying to identify research or teaching revenue and expenses as separate elements, it is more useful to imagine that the university purchases its undergraduate and research quality by drawing the money from one common fund. This is not true in detail, of course, since most university money is restricted to specific purposes in both private and public institutions. Nonetheless, universities gain more by thinking of all of the revenue as being available for any purpose: money is money. Institutions that first identify the best uses for their revenue (whether in improving the quality of the undergraduate student body or in improving the quality of the research enterprise), before considering various restrictions and limitations created by the providers of the revenue, will make better choices. They will identify the highest and best use of each dollar, and then, if necessary, they can make adjustments, reallocations, or transfers to meet required fund restrictions. By making their choices first, however, many universities find that they can accommodate fund restrictions and still stay on track with their optimal expenditure plan. If the university begins its budget plan by considering the limitations on funds, it will have The first requirement considerable difficulty identifor a successful fying the highest and best uses for the money. research university is The most useful measures of a university’s competitiveto generate revenue. ness mark the institution’s success in securing quality The second requirement research, a quality student is to spend it well. body, and quality faculty. The university with the most research, the highest student quality, and the most distinguished faculty is thus the most competitive. Of course, such measures do not mean that universities with smaller numbers are of less intrinsic value or that their smaller number of research faculty are less distinguished or less productive than the larger number at the more competitive institution. The data only identify which institutions compete most successfully for the largest share of the quality elements that all universities seek.

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 21

These data help to clarify general impressions about university performance. The differences between institutions with similar performance characteristics are not great, which is why TheCenter classifies institutions into groups based on their performance within the top 25 or the top 50 institutions on a variety of measures. More important than the classification of institutions into these groups, the comparable data provided by TheCenter allows universities to measure the effectiveness of their improvement initiatives. Indicators of Competitiveness: Although we cannot measure research university competition directly at the institutional level, a number of comparable indicators exist that, when taken together, give a reasonably good sense of a university’s competitiveness. This publication reports on these indicators, which the 2000 edition of The Top American Research Universities described in detail. In the following summary of each of the measures, we have included a high-median-low graphic that captures the range of performance of private and public research institutions on each measure within each of the four research groups or categories (over $20 million, $5 to $20 million, $1 to $5 million, and under $1 million in federal research expenditures). To reduce the effect of outliers, the high represents the 75th percentile and the low represents the 25th percentile. Briefly, the most important indicator of research competitiveness is the institution’s annual federal research expenditures. This number, reported by

Federal Research by Research Group and Control

Public 75th Percentile Median

25th Percentile

Over $20M

$5–$20M

$1–$5M

Under $1M

$180,000 $160,000 1999 Federal Research (x $1,000)

Private

$140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $87,152

$80,000 $60,000

$55,873

$40,000 $20,000 $11,384

$9,992 $2,361

$0

Page 22

$2,234

$233

$219

the National Science Foundation (NSF), reflects an institution’s research expenditures in the areas of science and engineering from funds awarded by the various programs of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation, and other agencies of the federal government, including the departments of Defense and Energy. These dollars, generally distributed through an intensely competitive peer-reviewed process, reflect the active scientific community’s judgment on the competitiveness of the faculty at each institution. An additional value of this measure is that it indicates the effectiveness of the institution in supporting research, for the more money a university spends in support of research, all things being equal, the more research it will get. Of course, if a university spends its money in support of research that does not result in publication or other peerreviewed results, its standing in this competition will not improve. For these reasons, most observers of the competition among American research universities watch the federal research expenditure number as the most reliable single indicator of research competitiveness. NSF also reports the annual federal awards of grants and contracts for research received by each institution, which is a significantly less useful measure. Awards often reflect multi-year commitments; expenditures capture the actual work done on projects during a given year. Awards also include dollars that subsequently flow to other universities under subcontracts. For institutions moving rapidly ahead on a research promotion agenda, the awards number may help to demonstrate their growing success in competing for greater amounts of research funding, but as a comparative measure of current university performance, the expenditure data are more reliable. Universities, both private and public, in addition to the federal expenditures, report expenditures from non-federal sources, including corporations, state governments, and foundation or for-profit research enterprises. These expenditures, more broadly defined than the federal number, include a variety of specially designated state funds that are allocated to institutions within the state for agriculture or other research purposes. Such funding may not be nation-

Ranking and Measuring

$5–$20M

$1–$5M

Under $1M

1999 Total Research (x $1,000)

$250,000

$200,000

$150,000 $126,001 $114,024

$100,000

$50,000 $15,522

$0

$21,005 $3,294

$3,454

$503

$576

ally competitive. Nonetheless, these expenditures, combined with the federal expenditures, reflect total research activity and provide a useful indicator of research performance, even if the national peer review process does not referee all of the projects included in this number. Most of the non-federal portion of this total research, especially when funded by foundations, requires institutional subsidies as well. Thus, many observers recognize total research expenditures as another useful indicator of research competitiveness. Universities that do not have large portfolios of corporate or agricultural research will argue that the total research measurement puts them at a disadvantage in any comparison. While that may be true, institutions still make many choices in how they will spend their revenue in support of research. Some will take advantage of medical schools; others will leverage their opportunities in agriculture. Some will take advantage of successfully constructed linkages between industry and programs in engineering to generate corporate funding. Others will benefit from alumni who direct large foundations that make research grants. The issue here is not the relative value of the different types of research but rather the strategies and successes of universities in creating the revenue necessary to expand their research portfolios. In making choices about how to compete for external research funding, some universities compete in all sectors of the research market, while others compete only in the parts of the market where they identify a comparative advantage. The federal and

Endowment Assets by Research Group and Control Over $20M

$5–$20M

$1–$5M

Under $1M

$3,500,000

$3,000,000 2000 Endowment Assets (x $1,000)

Over $20M

$300,000

total research expenditures capture most of this activity, and together these two serve as useful indicators of competitive research success. In the discussion of changes in research competitiveness included in this edition of The Top American Research Universities, however, we maintain our focus on federal research expenditures. Although it is difficult to derive a valid measure of the total financial resources that are available to a research university, two measures provide some indication of the university’s ability to compete for private funds. Endowment represents the university’s permanent fund that continues to generate income each year. Annual giving includes the total gifts received by the university in the most recent year. While endowment reflects a long history of private giving, as well as the growth of the fund through retained earnings and appreciation, it also serves as

$2,500,000

$2,000,000

$1,500,000 $1,278,774

$1,000,000

$500,000 $258,000

$189,547 $60,852

$0

$164,011 $38,636

$160,248

$20,805

Annual Giving by Research Group and Control Over $20M

$5–$20M

$1–$5M

Under $1M

$240,000

2000 Annual Giving (x $1,000)

Total Research by Research Group and Control

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

$200,000

$160,000

$120,000 $93,629

$80,000

$40,000

$46,712 $33,346 $12,547

$0

$15,112

$7,655

Page 23

$12,137 $3,013

Public 75th Percentile Median

National Academy Membership by Research Group and Control

25th Percentile

Over $20M

$5–$20M

$1–$5M

Under $1M

45

2000 National Academy Members

40 35 30 25 20 15 13

10 5

5 0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Faculty Awards by Research Group and Control Over $20M

$5–$20M

$1–$5M

The number of doctorates awarded reflects the university’s commitment to advanced study in all fields. Postdoctoral appointees demonstrate the commitment of the institution to subsidizing the cost of advanced training, much of which is in support of research, as well as their success in competing for grants that include postdoctoral support. Finally, as our model indicates, the best research universities spend a significant portion of revenue on the maintenance of high-quality undergraduate programs, and the median SAT score of the entering freshman class serves as an indicator of success in this competition. Graduate student quality would also be a useful indicator, but the data for such an indicator are not available in a form we can use in this project.

Under $1M

30

Doctorates Awarded by Research Group and Control

25

20 Over $20M

$5–$20M

$1–$5M

Under $1M

350 15 13

300

7

5

0

1

2

1

1

0

0

an indirect indicator of the annual income available from this source for current competitive expenditures. Annual giving reflects the most recent efforts of the institution in the private marketplace for donations. Data that directly measure faculty quality and productivity at the institutional level are rare, but national figures do exist on the numbers of National Academy memberships and prestigious faculty awards of various kinds. These distinctions, which recognize individual faculty merit in a wide range of scholarly disciplines, serve as useful indicators of an institution’s success in acquiring scarce faculty talent. Taken together, the two measures identify faculty recognized for distinction in the sciences, the humanities and social sciences, as well as most other fields of academic scholarship.

Page 24

2000 Doctorates Awarded

10 250

200 186

150

149

100

50

41 28 8

0

0

0

0

Postdoctoral Appointees by Research Group and Control Over $20M

$5–$20M

$1–$5M

Under $1M

450 400 350 1999 Postdoctoral Appointees

2000 Faculty Awards

Private

300 250 200 150

206

139

100 50 19

0

10

0

0

0

0

Ranking and Measuring

Median SAT Scores by Research Group and Control Over $20M

$5–$20M

$1–$5M

Under $1M

1450 1400 1350

1343

1999 Median SAT Score

1300 1250 1200 1178 1159

1150

1155

1128

1100 1050 1000

1050 1010

1010

950 900

These nine measures provide the basis for categorizing The Top American Research Universities. We believe that it is useful to identify those institutions that compete at the top levels (within the top 25) and at the next level (within the top 26–50) on one or more of these measures. Although we continue the practice of showing private and public institutional categories separately, we focus primarily on the categorization that includes all research universities within a national context. In some ways, we find this to be more useful, since the competition for faculty, students, and revenue often puts private and public universities into direct competition with each other on a national basis.

The Impact of Enrollment and Medical Schools on Research Competitiveness Some universities have remarkable success in the competition described by these data, but the critical determinants of university performance do not appear so clearly. In conversations among university people, two elements receive much attention. Some argue that increasing undergraduate enrollments brings a major competitive advantage. Others believe that the presence of a medical school gives universities a competitive advantage in today’s research marketplace. While our data indicate that enrollment and medical schools may very well make some difference, the impact is not as straightforward or as significant as one might assume.

Private and Public University Enrollment, Federal Research, and Faculty Numbers: Most observers of American research universities recognize that private universities tend to have smaller enrollments than their public counterparts. As indicated above in our discussion of the quality engine model, enrollment size responds to many pressures but probably reflects the financial model underlying the institution. Because research universities are complex organizations, however, simple assumptions about the relationship of enrollment to institutional competitiveness in research and student quality generally do not hold. To explore the impact of enrollment, we first examined the relationship between undergraduate headcount enrollment and federal research. We made a few adjustments to the data. For the analysis, we excluded stand-alone medical institutions. These institutions are significant competitors in the research marketplace but do not include undergraduate education within their primary mission. After these adjustments, the universe that we examined included those 575 universities reporting any federal research between 1990 and 1999, although we focused primarily on institutions with over $20 million in federal research. The scatterplot displays undergraduate enrollment and federal research for the 129 major research universities in this adjusted universe with over $20 million in federal expenditures. It clearly Large and small illustrates that private universities generally have institutions, private smaller enrollments than do their public counterparts, and public, appear but at the same time, it at all levels of research shows no simple linear relationship between performance. undergraduate enrollment size and success in the federal research competition. Large and small institutions, private and public, appear at all levels of research performance. The same pattern also holds for those research universities with less than $20 million. At every level of federal research, public universities tend to

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 25

Undergraduate Enrollment and Federal Research: Over $20 Million Universities 40,000 Private (N=43) Public (N=86)

1999 Undergraduate Enrollment

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

Public median: 17,857

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 $0

Private median: 6,108

$50,000

$100,000 $150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000 $350,000

$800,000

1999 Federal Research (x $1,000)

be larger than are their private counterparts, but the relationship between undergraduate size and federal research success is weak. Enrollment size is of some significance, nonetheless, in understanding the different financial models that underlie private and public research university competition. In our model of research universities described above, what matters is the availability of funds to invest in the acquisition and support of research faculty and of quality undergraduate programs. In the case of public universities, the size of an institution’s undergraduate enrollment responds to many pressures. In some instances, public universities grow in response to state mandates for increased public access to undergraduate education. Such institutions may well have many students and may use the revenue from enrollment to support a large portfolio of instructional and service enterprises that are of significant value but are unrelated to research or to the acquisition of quality students. In the event that teaching and

Page 26

service do not produce revenue exceeding their costs, their contribution to research or student competitiveness will not be great. Large institutions may also incur a quality penalty. In accommodating the large number of undergraduates required by state access goals, they may not have the resources to invest in the programs and other amenities that attract the highest quality undergraduates. Nonetheless, because most public universities receive substantial portions of their total budgets based on undergraduate enrollments, it is not surprising to discover that they generally grow larger than their private counterparts, whose revenue is not as enrollment driven. Indeed, private universities have between one-fourth to less than one-half of the median undergraduate enrollment of public institutions at every level of federal research. However, undergraduate enrollment has an obvious impact on the number of faculty members at an institution. In public universities, the larger number of students can support a larger number

Enrollment and Medical Schools

of faculty than at their smaller private counterparts. Nonetheless, if the larger public institution hires mostly teaching faculty — individuals who do not perform significant amounts of competitive research — then the increased faculty size will enhance research competitiveness less than the increase in faculty numbers might suggest. While public institutions support larger undergraduate student bodies and have larger complements of personnel than their private counterparts, this added size does not necessarily enhance their ability to capture large research portfolios or to enhance the quality of their students. Although the best public research competitors have substantial undergraduate enrollments (the five top public university performers in federal research have enrollments in the 15,000 to 30,000 range), the four private universities in the same range all have less than 12,000 in undergraduate enrollment. Again, we believe that this speaks to the underlying financial models. Public university enrollments may help to generate the revenue that allows them to compete for research faculty, but private universities may not gain much benefit from larger undergraduate enrollments. Unlike public universities, whose undergraduate enrollments respond to public policies and funding priorities, private universities may set their enrollments to meet programmatic needs. Private universities need enough students to populate the academic programs that they offer. An institution with a small number of academic specialties may require a smaller undergraduate student body than an institution with many specialties. Elite private universities often subsidize the tuition of their students from internal funds (using endowment earnings as well as various forms of federal and state financial aid) in order to compete successfully for the best students. Consequently, for private universities, increasing the size of the undergraduate student body may not produce a financial benefit but may instead increase their costs. For these reasons, it is likely that private institutions have a self-limiting enrollment structure scaled to match the academic complexity of the institution as well as its investment in competing for high-

quality students. As a result, the benefit that a larger enrollment brings to the private university’s research competitiveness is relatively limited. This may help to explain the narrower range of enrollment sizes for private universities compared to the wider range observed in comparable public institutions. An additional perspective on the issue of enrollment size involves the relationships between graduate student enrollment and federal research. Some graduate student enrollment, especially of those in the pursuit of Ph.D.s, reflects the size and capacity of research programs, but other graduate students are in various forms of terminal master’s degree programs that have much less of a relationship to the university’s research agenda. Universities with larger undergraduate enrollment gain an opportunity to support a larger number of graduate students For public universities, as teaching assistants. The plot of graduate student increasing undergraduate headcount and federal enrollment may help to research for the major research universities with generate the revenue that over $20 million in federal research is instructive. allows them to compete Among both private and for research faculty. For public institutions, approximately the same relationship privates, more students exists between the number of graduate students and may not provide a the size of the institution’s federal research expenditures. financial benefit but The difference in the instead increase costs median size of the graduate student populations of due to tuition subsidies. private and public universities is somewhat less than the difference observed for undergraduate student enrollment but it is still substantial. The scatterplot of undergraduate and graduate enrollment illustrates that while both private and public universities demonstrate a relationship between undergraduate and graduate enrollment, the relationship is substantially higher for public universities, as we would expect given the role of graduate students in the teaching mission of large public institutions.

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 27

Graduate Enrollment and Federal Research: Over $20 Million Universities 16,000

14,000 Private (N=43) Public (N=86)

1999 Graduate Enrollment

12,000

Public R2=0.32 10,000

Private R2=0.33 8,000

6,000

Public median: 5,600

4,000 Private median: 3,280 2,000

0 $0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000 $350,000

$800,000

1999 Federal Research (x $1,000)

Undergraduate vs. Graduate Enrollment: Over $20 Million Universities 40,000

1999 Undergraduate Enrollment

35,000

Private (N=43)

Public R2=0.57

Public (N=86)

30,000

25,000

20,000

Private R2=0.37

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1999 Graduate Enrollment

Page 28

Enrollment and Medical Schools

While enrollment, both undergraduate and graduate, helps us to understand some of the competitive elements in the construction of a successful research university, we do not have a measure for the most important element: the number of active research faculty. Unfortunately, no methodology currently exists to capture this number accurately. While all universities report various faculty counts to national agencies and in response to a variety of surveys, the methodologies used to produce these numbers vary significantly by institution, as described in a paper published on TheCenter website. The result is that comparisons based on faculty counts are unreliable, mostly because the data from the institutions are not comparable. Further complicating the use of faculty counts is the wide range of faculty functions in universities of different types. Some institutions have many individuals classified as faculty in instructional and service activities, while other institutions have most of their faculty in research functions. If we could identify the full-time equivalent research faculty on a standard basis across institutions, our hypothesis predicts that this number would be an excellent predictor of institutional research success, as it often is in comparing the research success of individual guilds. Reliable data on research faculty would also permit an analysis of comparative faculty productivity by institution, a task not possible with currently available faculty data. Medical Schools and Federal Research: Medical schools offer another point of comparison between institutions. A common perception holds that institutions with medical schools have an advantage in a research competition where significant sums go to biomedical and life science projects. Indeed, only eight institutions out of the top 50 in federal research succeed at this level without a medical school. The importance of life science research for many high-performing universities (which is visible in the data table of Institutional Characteristics for Institutions with Over $20 million in Federal Research) reinforces the belief in the importance of a medical school in the competition for federal research dollars.

Although medical schools frequently have highquality research faculty who compete successfully for federal grants and contracts, the data do not demonstrate that the existence of a medical school alone guarantees a nationally competitive research university faculty. Universities with and without medical schools appear at all levels of research competition. Although only one institution without a medical school competes among the top ten institutions in federal research, many institutions without medical schools compete successfully in each Comparisons based subsequent group of ten among the top 130 instituon faculty counts are tions (excluding stand-alone medical schools) ranked by unreliable, mostly federal research. because the data from The primary functions of medical schools, the institutions are not which include preparing future physicians and comparable. participating in the clinical enterprise, do not necessarily require high levels of federally funded basic research. Universities without medical schools often have significant investments in biomedical research in departments of biology, microbiology, bioengineering, and similar disciplines, and they often compete effectively against the medical school research faculty at other institutions. The key contribution that a medical school makes to a research university is the generation of surplus revenue that can subsidize the development of high-quality biomedical and life science research. Most, but not all, medical schools prove capable of generating such surpluses and have the commitment to invest such funds into research. Nonetheless, universities with and without medical schools perform at comparable levels of research competitiveness. The chart included here shows the top 130 research universities divided into groups of ten based upon federal research, with each cluster divided by those institutions with medical schools and those without. In this chart, we removed the institutions that are stand-alone medical schools,

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 29

as our discussion here focuses on comprehensive research universities that include medical schools. Universities with and without medical schools appear in all clusters of federal research within the top 130 universities represented by this chart. Of the 80 universities with medical schools, 14 institutions do not have sufficient federal research activity to rank among the top 130 institutions included in this chart. Universities with and without Medical Schools by 1999 Federal Research Rank Medical No Medical

10 9

Number of Institutions

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

111–120

101–110

81–90

91–100

71–80

61–70

51–60

41–50

31–40

21–30

11–20

1–10

0

121–130

1

Universities Grouped by National Rank

When a medical school generates a surplus and invests that in support of research, its presence as part of the university will make a major contribution to its research competitiveness. The existence of a medical school with the capacity to support research, then, contributes to the university’s research competitiveness. A medical school alone does not guarantee competitiveness.

ance of a university in terms of its federal research comes from the success of its faculty in competing for these funds. While this is obvious, it bears emphasis that this competition is fierce. Success rates for proposals submitted to the NSF and NIH vary, but in recent years, over all projects, about 30% of the proposals submitted received funding. The resulting expenditures by universities from federal funds reflect the aggregate success of the institution in acquiring and supporting research faculty who compete successfully for these funds. Universities increase or decrease in their research performance based primarily on this competition. Change in Rank Order: Many observers focus on the ranking of research universities, including the authors of this report. However, overemphasis on rank order as the primary reflection of competitiveness can obscure some important distinctions. Ranking, by virtue of its evenly spaced series from number one on down, gives the impression that ranking also reflects an even distribution of performance. That is certainly not the case here. In fact, the performance gap between universities at the top of the ranking scale is much greater than the difference separating universities farther down the scale. As the following figure illustrates, the distance that separates universities (median, low, and high) within groups of ten decreases rapidly as rank declines. Gap between Adjacent Ranked Universities by 1999 Federal Research Rank $30,000

Change in Competitive Performance on Federal Research Competition in university research implies gains and losses. University faculty offer more quality research proposals than the various federal agencies can support. Primarily through the process of peer review, although sometimes through the direct appropriation of federal dollars to individual research projects or institutions without peer review (this process is called earmarking), some faculty projects receive funding while others do not. The perform-

Page 30

Gap between Institutions (x $1,000)

Highest Gap

$25,000

Median Gap

*

Lowest Gap

$20,000

$15,000

$14,165

$10,000

$5,194

$5,000

$3,970

$0

$781

1–10

11–20

21–30

31–40

$1,145

41–50

$628

51–100

Universities Grouped by National Rank

* The gap between Johns Hopkins and the second-ranked institution ($402 million) is atypical and therefore excluded from this analysis.

Change in Federal Research

For example, the median gap between each of the universities ranked 1–10 is about $14.2 million, while the median gap for ranks 11–20 is less than two-thirds of that at $5.2 million. Thus, to improve in rank, holding all other elements constant, a university in the top ten might need to increase its federal expenditures by roughly 6% while a university in the 11–20 range would only need to increase by about 2%. In practice, not all elements are constant, since a change in the rank of any particular university is a function of its position relative not to the median of its group but to the performance of institutions immediately above and below. The variation in the gap between institutions of similar research performance is large, and the amount of change required to move up one rank varies substantially by institution. Improvement or decline in rank also depends on the behavior of other universities. If the institution one position higher declines in performance, the university below may improve its rank without having improved its performance at all. A university that improves its performance may nonetheless decline in rank because the institution below it made a greater improvement and the institution above it improved by the same amount. The figures included here clarify these relationships. We looked at all universities with $20 million or more in federal research over a period of ten years (1990–1999). We divided them into two groups:

those whose federal research increased in constant 1998 dollars, and those whose federal research declined. We then tracked the change in rank for each group and arranged them by the size of their 1999 federal research expenditures. Of those who gained in expenditures, some also improved their rank, but many did not. The amount of rank change over the ten-year period increases as the amount of federal research decreases, illustrating the impact of the smaller gap between universities at lower ranks. The second chart shows the rank change for institutions that experienced a decline in federal research during the ten-year period. All of those in the higher ranks declined significantly in research volume and declined somewhat in rank with the exception of Johns Hopkins. Although Hopkins lost $29.8 million in constant dollars over the ten years, it easily maintained its top position in the ranking. The ranking of universities helps to illustrate the general characteristics of research competitiveness, but change in rank is less helpful as an indicator of individual university performance over time. A better indicator is the actual change in federal research expenditures, expressed in constant 1998 dollars, which gives a useful comparative context for assessing institutional performance. An absolute decline in constant-dollar federal research expenditures is a relatively clear event for this decade, since there was an increase in the total federal dollars available. An absolute increase, Over $20 Million Universities with a Decrease in Federal Research: Change in National Rank, 1990–99

Over $20 Million Universities with an Increase in Federal Research: Change in National Rank, 1990–99 $800,000 $350,000

$350,000 Declined in Rank

$300,000

1999 Federal Research (x $1,000)

1999 Federal Research (x $1,000)

$400,000

Improved in Rank

$250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000

Declined in Rank

Improved in Rank

$300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000

$50,000 $0 -25

0

25

50

75

100

Net Change in National Rank

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

$0 -50

-25

0

Net Change in National Rank

Page 31

Growth in Federal Research, 1990–99 (in Constant 1998 Dollars)

Federal Research in Constant 1998 Dollars (in billions)

16 Total Federal Research grew by 25.3% between 1990 and 1999.

14

12

Over $20 Million Public Universities had an overall growth rate of 27.1%.

10

8

6

Over $20 Million Private Universities had an overall growth rate of 18.3%.

4

2 All universities with less than $20 million grew by 49.8%.

0 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

however, offers two possible interpretations. In the first case, an institution might increase its research expenditures, but at a rate less than the rate of increase for all research university federal expenditures. In this decade, the overall increase was 25.3%. In a relative sense, this may reflect a decline in an institution’s share of federal research, as it has not grown at the same rate as the pool of funds. In the second case, an institution might increase its constant-dollar research expenditures at a rate in Change in Federal Research, 1990–99: Over $20 Million Universities (in Constant 1998 Dollars)

Increase Greater than 25.3% (N=82) Increase Less than 25.3% (N=46) Decrease in Research (N=26)

Number of Universities with Increase

24 16 8

Number of Universities with Decrease

58

30 18

Private

Public

(N=48)

(N=106)

Page 32

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

excess of the increase of the pool, thus also increasing its share. The table below displays those universities with over $20 million that experienced each of these three cases over the past ten years. Private and Public University Shares of Federal Research: The shifts in market share offer some additional insight. The past decade has seen the emergence of a number of public universities competing successfully for federal research dollars. As a result, the distribution of market share in federal research expenditures has shifted over the period of 1990–1999. Private universities with over $20 million in federal research lost 2.2% market share during the decade. This was the only category of universities amount our four research groups that lost market share. Because the total amount of federal dollars grew during those ten years, the private institutions in this category gained $896 million, but because the total federal expenditures grew at a faster rate, they actually lost market share. Public research universities with over $1 million gained 1.97%, with most of the gain occurring in

Change in Federal Research

Change in Federal Research Market Share, 1990–99: By Research Group and Control (in Constant 1998 Dollars) Over $20M

$5–$20M

$1–$5M

Under $1M

(N=154)

(N=97)

(N=128)

(N=238)

1.0%

0.84%

0.74%

0.5%

0.39% 0.13%

0.08%

0.02%

0.00%

-0.5% Private Public

-1.0%

-1.5%

-2.0% -2.20% -2.5%

the $20 million and $5–$20 million categories. Private universities with less than $20 million gained 0.23% market share in the decade. A final reflection on the private-public distribution of federal research compares private and public university research expenditures. The graph includes two lines plotted on the same scale: one for the top 100 private universities and the other for top 100 public universities, both arranged in order of their

Top 100 Private vs. Top 100 Public Institutions: 1999 Federal Research $800,000 $350,000 1999 Federal Research (x $1,000)

Percentage Change

0.0%

federal research expenditures. The purpose of this graph is to show the relative competitiveness of private and public research universities in acquiring federal research support. For the first 12 private and the first 12 public universities, the private universities have a higher level of federal research. After than, this pattern reverses, and from rank 13 on down, public universities have greater federal research expenditures than private universities. This pattern indicates that the top private universities continue to succeed in maintaining their preeminence as competitive research performers. However, the number of private universities that can compete with their public counterparts falls off after rank 12. Although we have not yet analyzed this pattern in detail, we expect that tax-based funding provides the revenue supporting many public universities’ investments in research-competitive faculty and facilities. Private universities often find it more difficult to generate the revenue required to compete for faculty and to provide the necessary research support. As a result, while many private universities remain competitive, they find themselves at a

Private Public

$300,000 $250,000 Rank 12

$200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $20 Million

$0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Control Rank

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 33

disadvantage compared to their public competitors on one side and their better-endowed private competitors on the other. Patterns of Improvement and Decline in Federal Research Expenditures: Although we can summarize the aggregate behavior of research university competitiveness over time, as measured by federal research expenditures, the patterns of change for individual universities pose a different challenge. Some institutions demonstrate predictable patterns, with a steady increase or decrease in their expenditures. For others, the data change substantially over the ten-year period, rising many millions in one year and falling an equal or greater amount in subsequent years. These larger changes reflect many circumstances that are particular to each university. Institutions can receive grants that include capital expenditures. As the university spends these one-time dollars, the reported federal expenditures for that year will spike upward, only to fall back to a normal level in subsequent years. Institutions can gain or lose large grants, producing major fluctuations

in their expenditure patterns. Sometimes, universities improve their methods of data reporting to the federal government, producing a one-time increase in the reported revenue. Whatever the case, an explanation for the particular history of any university’s research competitiveness requires a specific and detailed understanding of that institution’s research activities in comparison to similarly competitive counterparts. The explanations for a rise or fall in reported results will vary significantly from institution to institution. An illustration of the complexity of a university’s research performance as reflected by federal expenditures is visible in the graphs of ten universities displayed in the two figures below. The first figure graphs the ten-year performance of five universities (1 private, 4 public) that showed the greatest percentage improvement in their research performance (excluding stand-alone medical institutions). The second figure graphs a comparable group of five universities (3 private, 2 public) that declined the most in research performance during the same ten-

Research Universities with the Largest Percentage Increase in Federal Research: 1990–1999

Federal Research in Constant 1998 Dollars (x $1,000)

$100,000

$80,000

$60,000

$40,000

$20,000

$0 1990

1991

Page 34

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Change in Federal Research

year period. The institutions all fall within a group reporting expenditures in the $20–$90 million range in 1999. The graphs display expenditures in constant 1998 dollars. Some of these institutions report a steady rise or fall in expenditures; others show major changes from one year to the next. To understand the competitive circumstances of the federal research marketplace that these data reflect, each institution would need to review its ten-year data and compare this performance history with its near competitors. For all of the similarity in their organizational models, American research universities have many different strategies for success. No single pattern explains the success or difficulty encountered by universities in competing for federal research and outstanding students. Our understanding of research university behavior indicates that the most important element is the creation of revenue to subsidize the acquisition of high-quality scarce faculty and student talent and support for the research enterprise. At the same time, each

university has an internal strategy for the effective investment of its revenue. Many characteristics determine a university’s ability to compete for the scarce elements that make a research institution. No single characteristic appears to explain competitive achievement, but instead, the right combination of elements matched with an institution’s resources and opportunities is what appears to drive the most successful institutions. To maintain or improve their competitiveness in these marketplaces, universities almost certainly need to understand the relationship between their investments in research and student support and the results that they achieve. Some universities may be wealthy enough to avoid the discipline of measuring results, but most institutions are not. Our goal in this publication is to provide useful data that present institutions within their competitive context as a tool for measuring and improving research university performance.

Research Universities with the Largest Percentage Decrease in Federal Research: 1990–1999

Federal Research in Constant 1998 Dollars (x $1,000)

$100,000

$80,000

$60,000

$40,000

$20,000

$0 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

1996

1997

1998

Page 35

1999

Page 36

Data Tables Part I The Top American Research Universities TheCenter determines the Top American Research Universities by their rank on nine different measures: Total Research, Federal Research, Endowment Assets, Annual Giving, National Academy Members, Faculty Awards, Doctorates Granted, Postdoctoral Appointees, and Median SAT Scores. (The Source Notes section of this study provides detailed information on each of the nine indicators.) The tables group research institutions according to how many times they rank in the top 25 on each of these nine measures. The top category includes those universities that rank in the top 25 on all nine indicators. The bottom category includes universities with only one of the nine measures ranked in the top 25. Within these groups, institutions are then sorted by how many times they rank between 26 and 50 on the nine performance variables, with ties listed alphabetically. A similar methodology produces a second set of institutions — those ranked 26 through 50 on the same nine measures. For the purpose of this study, TheCenter includes only those institutions that had at least $20 million in federal research expenditures in FY 1999. This is the same dollar cutoff used in our last report. The first two tables list each institution with the most current data available for each measure and its corresponding national rank (i.e., rank among all institutions regardless of whether they are privately or publicly controlled). The third and fourth tables provide the same nine data measures but with the groupings determined by the control rank (i.e., rank among all private or all public institutions). Institutions ranking in the top 25 on at least one measure are included in the tables with the (1–25) identifier, while those ranking 26 through 50 are found in the tables labeled with the (26–50) header.

• The Top American Research Universities (1–25) identifies the 50 institutions (26 private, 24 public) that rank in the top 25 nationally on at least one of the nine measures.

• The Top American Research Universities (26–50) identifies the 37 institutions (9 private, 28 public) that rank 26 through 50 nationally on at least one of the nine measures.

• The Top Private Research Universities (1–25) identifies the 36 private institutions that rank in the top 25 among all private universities on at least one of the nine measures.

• The Top Public Research Universities (1–25) identifies the 46 public institutions that rank in the top 25 among all public universities on at least one of the nine measures.

• The Top Private and Public Research Universities (26–50) identifies the 12 private and 31 public institutions that rank 26 through 50 among their private or public counterparts on at least one of the nine measures. Many research universities rank highly both nationally and among their public or private peers and therefore appear in more than one table. For example, of the 36 private institutions in the Top Private Research Universities (1–25) table, 27 universities also appear in the Top American Research Universities (1–25) table. Data found in these tables may not always match the figures published by the original source. TheCenter makes adjustments, when necessary, to ensure that the data reflect the activity at a single campus rather than that of a multiple campus institution or state university system. When data are missing from the original source, TheCenter may substitute another figure if available. A full discussion of this subject, and the various adjustments or substitutions made to the original data, is in the Data Notes section of this report. TheCenter presents these tables, along with last year’s top universities, in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets on its website [http://thecenter.ufl.edu].

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 37

Top American Research Universities (1–25) Institutions in Order of Top 25 Score, then Top 26–50 Score, then Alphabetically Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Private Private Public Public Private

Cornell University Harvard University Massachusetts Institute of Technology Stanford University University of Pennsylvania Columbia University Johns Hopkins University Duke University University of California — Berkeley University of Michigan — Ann Arbor University of Minnesota — Twin Cities University of California — Los Angeles University of Southern California University of Wisconsin — Madison University of Washington — Seattle Washington University Yale University University of California — San Francisco University of Chicago University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill Princeton University University of California — San Diego University of Texas — Austin University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign Northwestern University California Institute of Technology Ohio State University — Columbus Texas A&M University University of Arizona University of Florida University of Virginia Pennsylvania State University — University Park University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh Vanderbilt University Dartmouth College Rice University New York University Baylor College of Medicine Emory University Michigan State University Purdue University — West Lafayette University of California — Davis Brown University University of Maryland — College Park Carnegie Mellon University Rockefeller University University of Notre Dame Indiana University — Bloomington University at Stony Brook Yeshiva University

Page 38

Private Support

Research

Number of Measures in Top 25 Nationally

Number of Measures in Top 26–50 Nationally

9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 3 3 2 2 2 1 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 1 8 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 0

1999 — Total Research x $1000

395,552 326,193 420,306 426,549 383,569 279,587 874,518 348,274 451,539 508,619 356,529 477,620 280,741 462,725 482,659 315,606 274,050 417,095 162,805 252,767 124,237 461,632 258,122 358,247 233,809 212,216 322,810 402,203 320,245 304,447 157,487 333,874 249,477 149,675 69,522 41,069 167,179 272,198 189,170 207,912 226,411 307,950 76,330 257,628 142,174 121,519 30,483 77,916 148,982 111,771

Total Research National Rank

12 18 9 8 13 25 1 16 7 2 15 4 24 5 3 21 26 10 52 32 75 6 30 14 35 38 19 11 20 23 55 17 33 61 115 150 49 27 42 39 37 22 109 31 65 77 165 108 63 81

1999 — Federal Research x $1000

234,792 266,019 308,921 353,947 279,013 240,158 770,580 186,757 191,025 334,226 207,761 251,999 199,619 249,961 368,112 218,598 213,404 233,181 135,720 182,935 72,974 292,007 164,913 185,767 132,647 195,303 135,216 149,151 178,126 122,296 108,495 175,212 194,618 116,887 46,741 35,012 111,124 141,111 132,816 89,835 95,708 124,463 45,276 145,081 90,408 45,010 23,614 40,905 93,937 89,680

Federal Research National Rank

2000 — Endowment Assets x $1000

Endowment National Rank

12 8 5 3 7 11 1 21 20 4 16 9 17 10 2 14 15 13 33 23 69 6 27 22 37 18 34 28 24 41 46 25 19 42 97 111 45 30 36 56 51 38 100 29 55 101 143 105 52 57

3,436,926 18,844,338 6,475,506 8,649,475 3,200,812 4,263,972 1,825,212 2,663,891 2,168,671 3,329,637 1,809,305 1,447,371 2,152,589 1,080,363 911,804 4,234,599 10,084,900 912,258 3,828,664 1,105,254 8,398,100 292,730 1,611,050 585,879 3,368,233 1,535,702 1,294,923 3,932,469 285,356 681,370 1,738,984 781,038 1,018,015 2,314,935 2,490,376 3,372,458 1,030,800 1,044,685 5,032,683 310,289 1,301,976 395,346 1,416,052 319,061 829,121 1,372,200 3,089,007 499,105 38,145 775,262

11 1 5 3 15 7 22 17 20 14 23 28 21 39 53 8 2 52 10 38 4 150 25 79 13 27 33 9 153 70 24 62 44 19 18 12 43 41 6 140 32 110 29 135 59 30 16 85 491 63

To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s ( 1 – 2 5 )

2000 — Annual Giving x $1000

308,676 485,238 238,426 580,474 288,152 292,268 304,044 407,953 166,844 221,381 193,950 253,765 253,288 280,182 225,575 127,219 358,103 218,320 177,619 164,640 166,189 112,792 201,637 107,504 203,069 117,561 174,329 110,426 91,711 163,600 195,284 125,958 82,030 94,181 116,128 73,651 236,620 92,078 101,430 121,287 84,358 76,768 93,077 56,119 71,671 60,179 140,679 100,797 20,080 41,299

Giving National Rank

2000 — National Academy Members

5 2 12 1 8 7 6 3 23 15 20 10 11 9 14 30 4 16 21 25 24 36 18 39 17 33 22 37 49 26 19 31 56 45 34 61 13 48 41 32 53 58 46 83 64 76 28 42 198 105

82 247 236 239 87 75 65 40 190 60 36 61 34 68 71 35 101 64 60 33 73 91 52 53 31 93 13 15 27 17 22 22 17 11 15 19 30 12 9 6 17 25 17 18 22 43 2 10 12 9

National Academy National Rank

9 1 3 2 8 10 14 22 4 17 23 16 25 13 12 24 5 15 17 26 11 7 20 19 28 6 54 50 30 46 35 35 46 58 50 42 29 55 66 78 46 32 46 44 35 21 112 62 55 66

Undergraduate

Advanced Training

Faculty

Private Support

2000 — Faculty Awards

32 61 33 54 42 38 35 31 59 32 31 51 19 25 37 30 28 31 35 29 28 29 28 33 27 14 19 11 18 27 25 16 11 18 13 8 22 13 10 15 19 19 11 12 14 10 13 11 17 5

Faculty Awards National Rank

2000 — Doctorates Granted

Doctorates National Rank

12 1 10 3 5 6 8 14 2 12 14 4 29 25 7 17 20 14 8 18 20 18 20 10 23 46 29 61 36 23 25 39 61 36 52 81 27 52 69 42 29 29 61 58 46 69 52 61 38 111

468 602 475 589 427 461 351 230 756 629 604 606 481 729 486 199 334 77 391 425 279 294 659 597 321 127 620 490 405 516 343 513 316 190 38 115 402 61 160 444 468 357 149 461 152 19 147 409 244 126

18 8 17 10 23 20 32 63 1 4 7 6 16 2 15 72 34 155 28 24 45 41 3 9 35 104 5 14 26 12 33 13 37 74 228 118 27 179 86 22 18 30 94 20 92 312 95 25 58 105

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

1999 — Postdoctoral Appointees

Postdocs National Rank

607 3291 498 1242 917 352 1239 571 933 728 518 851 558 440 1057 582 206 1117 348 568 315 968 246 246 249 497 264 267 451 344 339 246 432 406 115 118 293 394 200 258 228 204 187 220 144 275 96 143 400 400

Page 39

11 1 17 2 8 27 3 13 7 10 16 9 15 20 5 12 62 4 29 14 33 6 52 52 50 18 44 43 19 30 31 52 21 22 90 89 36 25 66 47 58 63 67 60 79 40 102 80 23 23

1999 — Median SAT

1365 1495 1475 1455 1400 1370 1385 1400 1315 1270 1185 1285 1265 1195 1160 1355 1465 NA 1390 1245 1450 1180 1195 1250 1370 1515 1140 1180 1100 1265 1310 1205 1145 1310 1440 1415 1325 NA 1340 1110 1100 1170 1390 1240 1365 NA 1345 1095 1120 1190

SAT National Rank

24 2 4 6 13 22 18 13 52 77 182 70 84 164 224 29 5 16 104 7 185 164 98 22 1 283 185 421 84 58 146 267 58 8 11 47 36 377 421 204 16 110 24 35 444 351 172

Top American Research Universities (26–50) Institutions in Order of Top 26–50 Score, then Alphabetically

Private Support

Research

Number of Measures in Top 26–50 Nationally

1999 — Total Research x $1000

Total Research National Rank

1999 — Federal Research x $1000

Federal Research National Rank

2000 — Endowment Assets x $1000

Endowment National Rank

Private

Case Western Reserve University

7

182,332

44

140,178

32

1,550,600

26

Public

Georgia Institute of Technology

7

263,725

29

112,861

43

1,141,666

36

Public

University of Colorado — Boulder

6

184,237

43

140,959

31

238,960

173

Private

University of Rochester

6

177,126

45

132,852

35

1,278,774

34

Public

University of Iowa

5

207,135

40

122,638

40

424,159

100

Public

University of Utah

5

153,843

58

111,716

44

317,268

136

Private

Boston University

4

141,102

67

123,390

39

913,207

50

Public

North Carolina State University

4

270,621

28

66,310

73

312,840

139

Public

Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick

4

190,316

41

67,341

72

400,259

108

Public

University of Alabama — Birmingham

4

232,115

36

165,223

26

228,740

179

Public

University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas

4

165,520

51

101,996

47

713,253

68

Public

University at Buffalo

3

166,823

50

85,490

59

447,322

95

Public

University of Illinois — Chicago

3

175,093

46

86,406

58

119,007

285

Private

Brandeis University

2

48,305

136

29,423

123

406,722

105

Private

Georgetown University

2

111,426

82

83,972

63

745,398

64

Public

Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis

2

116,874

78

61,357

77

381,134

116

Public

University of California — Irvine

2

141,842

66

75,505

66

128,738

268

Public

University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati

2

153,002

59

100,325

50

963,907

47

Public

University of Colorado Health Sciences Center

2

130,450

72

101,044

49

119,480

284

Public

University of Georgia

2

237,493

34

56,080

84

388,422

113

Public

University of Kentucky

2

174,034

47

66,184

74

370,125

120

Private

University of Miami

2

139,608

69

101,883

48

465,212

92

Public

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

2

169,250

48

75,386

67

368,197

121

Public

Arizona State University — Tempe

1

107,184

84

53,905

90

215,594

189

Public

Colorado State University

1

150,281

60

91,943

54

104,777

310

Public

Iowa State University

1

161,301

53

54,179

89

410,704

103

Public

Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge

1

158,672

54

37,291

107

189,813

203

Private

Saint Louis University — St. Louis

1

27,817

172

23,722

142

925,955

49

Private

Tufts University

1

101,728

88

63,618

75

523,520

83

Public

University of California — Santa Barbara

1

104,561

87

74,026

68

85,866

341

Public

University of Connecticut — Storrs

1

75,592

111

23,863

140

125,638

273

Public

University of Kansas — Lawrence

1

73,831

112

33,176

115

684,362

69

Public

University of Massachusetts — Amherst

1

86,576

98

39,877

106

65,247

389

Public

University of Tennessee — Knoxville

1

101,717

89

44,920

102

258,000

164

Public

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

1

155,126

57

69,413

71

300,480

144

Public

University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston

1

93,580

94

55,061

87

342,602

128

Private

Wake Forest University

1

82,827

102

60,293

78

969,618

46

Page 40

To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s ( 2 6 – 5 0 )

Faculty

Private Support 2000 — Annual Giving x $1000

Giving National Rank

2000 — National Academy Members

National Academy National Rank

Undergraduate

Advanced Training

2000 — Faculty Awards

Faculty Awards National Rank

2000 — Doctorates Granted

Doctorates National Rank

1999 — Postdoctoral Appointees

Postdocs National Rank

1999 — Median SAT

SAT National Rank

109,933

38

23

34

6

92

202

69

349

28

1330

44

107,465

40

22

35

15

42

230

63

0

264

1320

48

57,284

81

24

33

15

42

266

50

274

41

1160

224

64,091

71

20

41

12

58

211

67

268

42

1320

48

83,894

54

18

44

11

61

317

36

279

39

1190

172

144,016

27

19

42

19

29

215

66

295

35

1130

317

73,428

62

14

53

20

28

274

49

183

70

1270

77

74,363

59

15

50

14

46

316

37

203

64

1175

198

73,945

60

26

31

19

29

371

29

151

78

1205

146

56,864

82

9

66

15

42

125

107

280

38

1010

799

115,033

35

22

35

19

29

55

192

229

57

NA

28,287

148

5

83

16

39

303

40

246

52

1110

377

38,509

114

5

83

16

39

201

71

264

44

1070

520

61,704

74

12

55

14

46

111

123

100

99

1320

48

92,837

47

5

83

6

92

107

127

70

118

1350

31

90,718

50

5

83

4

131

43

219

255

48

945

1090

67,254

69

21

40

12

58

202

69

324

32

1145

267

61,671

75

2

112

8

81

238

59

224

59

1050

612

28,642

145

7

72

9

73

44

216

285

37

NA

45,739

97

8

71

11

61

352

31

179

71

1195

164

48,382

93

4

96

14

46

249

55

186

68

1125

332

100,563

43

1

132

3

158

176

80

138

84

1160

224

55,610

84

11

58

7

85

309

39

108

94

1165

216

69,026

65

3

100

11

61

286

42

75

112

1105

405

22,465

177

6

78

5

111

180

79

255

48

1130

317

130,022

29

7

72

6

92

238

59

179

71

1210

140

33,400

128

1

132

10

69

275

47

72

116

1090

460

31,662

134

1

132

0

517

123

108

38

147

1160

224

72,990

63

5

83

13

52

100

131

243

56

1340

36

24,111

168

32

27

9

73

232

62

158

76

1185

182

31,755

133

1

132

8

81

275

47

59

126

1130

317

62,793

73

7

72

14

46

246

56

130

86

1110

377

21,117

192

10

62

13

52

276

46

143

80

1135

302

48,004

94

1

132

6

92

286

42

107

96

1100

421

63,526

72

1

132

2

199

NA

392

26

NA

34,969

124

2

112

1

283

35

241

263

46

NA

42,502

103

2

112

2

199

28

270

96

102

1300

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 41

64

Top Private Research Universities (1–25)

Private Support

Research 1999 — Total Research x $1000

1999 — Federal Research x $1000

Federal Research Control Rank

2000 — Endowment Assets x $1000

Endowment Control Rank

240,158

6

4,263,972

7

4

234,792

7

3,436,926

10

348,274

6

186,757

12

2,663,891

15

0

326,193

7

266,019

5

18,844,338

1

9

0

874,518

1

770,580

1

1,825,212

19

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

9

0

420,306

3

308,921

3

6,475,506

5

Northwestern University

9

0

233,809

13

132,647

18

3,368,233

12

Stanford University

9

0

426,549

2

353,947

2

8,649,475

3

University of Chicago

9

0

162,805

19

135,720

15

3,828,664

9

University of Pennsylvania

9

0

383,569

5

279,013

4

3,200,812

13

Yale University

9

0

274,050

11

213,404

9

10,084,900

2

California Institute of Technology

8

1

212,216

14

195,303

11

1,535,702

21

Princeton University

8

1

124,237

25

72,974

27

8,398,100

4

Washington University

8

1

315,606

8

218,598

8

4,234,599

8

University of Southern California

8

0

280,741

9

199,619

10

2,152,589

18

Case Western Reserve University

7

2

182,332

16

140,178

14

1,550,600

20

New York University

7

2

167,179

18

111,124

21

1,030,800

31

University of Rochester

7

2

177,126

17

132,852

16

1,278,774

25

Vanderbilt University

7

1

149,675

20

116,887

20

2,314,935

17

Baylor College of Medicine

6

1

272,198

12

141,111

13

1,044,685

29

Carnegie Mellon University

5

4

142,174

21

90,408

23

829,121

42

Boston University

5

3

141,102

22

123,390

19

913,207

36

Dartmouth College

5

3

69,522

35

46,741

35

2,490,376

16

Brown University

4

5

76,330

33

45,276

36

1,416,052

22

Emory University

4

5

189,170

15

132,816

17

5,032,683

6

University of Miami

4

2

139,608

23

101,883

22

465,212

68

Rice University

3

6

41,069

40

35,012

38

3,372,458

11

University of Notre Dame

3

6

30,483

44

23,614

44

3,089,007

14

Rockefeller University

3

4

121,519

26

45,010

37

1,372,200

23

Brandeis University

2

6

48,305

39

29,423

42

406,722

75

Tufts University

2

6

101,728

29

63,618

28

523,520

60

Yeshiva University

2

6

111,771

27

89,680

24

775,262

45

Mount Sinai School of Medicine

2

1

127,765

24

84,624

25

NR

Georgetown University

1

8

111,426

28

83,972

26

745,398

46

George Washington University

1

6

66,757

36

49,944

33

737,647

47

Thomas Jefferson University

1

3

78,410

32

56,369

31

400,000

78

Number of Measures in Top 25 Among Privates

Number of Measures in Top 26–50 Among Privates

Columbia University

9

0

279,587

10

Cornell University

9

0

395,552

Duke University

9

0

Harvard University

9

Johns Hopkins University

Institutions in Order of Top 25 Score, then Top 26–50 Score, then Alphabetically

Page 42

Total Research Control Rank

To p P r i v a t e R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s ( 1 – 2 5 )

Private Support 2000 — Annual Giving x $1000

Advanced Training

Faculty 2000 — National Academy Members

Giving Control Rank

2000 — Faculty Awards

National Academy Control Rank

2000 — Doctorates Granted

Faculty Awards Control Rank

Doctorates Control Rank

1999 — Postdoctoral Appointees

Undergraduate Postdocs Control Rank

1999 — Median SAT

SAT Control Rank

292,268

7

75

8

38

4

461

7

352

14

1370

22

308,676

5

82

7

32

8

468

6

607

5

1365

24

407,953

3

40

13

31

9

230

17

571

7

1400

13

485,238

2

247

1

61

1

602

1

3291

1

1495

2

304,044

6

65

10

35

5

351

11

1239

3

1385

18

238,426

10

236

3

33

7

475

5

498

9

1475

4

203,069

12

31

16

27

13

321

13

249

22

1370

22

580,474

1

239

2

54

2

589

2

1242

2

1455

6

177,619

13

60

11

35

5

391

10

348

16

1390

16

288,152

8

87

6

42

3

427

8

917

4

1400

13

358,103

4

101

4

28

11

334

12

206

25

1465

5

117,561

17

93

5

14

18

127

33

497

10

1515

1

166,189

14

73

9

28

11

279

14

315

17

1450

7

127,219

16

35

14

30

10

199

20

582

6

1355

29

253,288

9

34

15

19

16

481

4

558

8

1265

75

109,933

19

23

18

6

33

202

19

349

15

1330

44

236,620

11

30

17

22

14

402

9

293

19

1325

47

64,091

34

20

20

12

25

211

18

268

21

1320

48

94,181

22

11

27

18

17

190

22

406

11

1310

55

92,078

25

12

25

13

21

61

65

394

13

NA

71,671

30

22

19

14

18

152

29

144

29

1365

24

73,428

28

14

24

20

15

274

15

183

28

1270

70

116,128

18

15

23

13

21

38

91

115

32

1440

8

93,077

23

17

22

11

26

149

30

187

27

1390

16

101,430

20

9

30

10

27

160

28

200

26

1340

36

100,563

21

1

50

3

55

176

24

138

30

1160

178

73,651

27

19

21

8

30

115

42

118

31

1415

11

140,679

15

2

43

13

21

147

31

96

35

1345

35

60,179

36

43

12

10

27

19

143

275

20

NA

61,704

35

12

25

14

18

111

44

100

34

1320

48

72,990

29

5

34

13

21

100

48

243

24

1340

36

41,299

48

9

30

5

38

126

34

400

12

1190

139

11

27

3

55

27

120

0

88

NA

NR 92,837

24

5

34

6

33

107

46

70

38

1350

31

40,350

49

4

39

2

71

236

16

50

43

1235

99

31,000

65

6

33

2

71

16

157

247

23

NA

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 43

Top Public Research Universities (1–25) Institutions in Order of Top 25 Score, then Top 26–50 Score, then Alphabetically University of California — Berkeley University of California — Los Angeles University of Florida University of Michigan — Ann Arbor University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill Pennsylvania State University — University Park University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign University of Minnesota — Twin Cities University of Virginia University of Washington — Seattle University of Wisconsin — Madison University of Texas — Austin Georgia Institute of Technology Ohio State University — Columbus University of Arizona University of California — San Francisco Texas A&M University University of California — San Diego University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh University of California — Davis University of Maryland — College Park Purdue University — West Lafayette University of Utah Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick University of Iowa Michigan State University University of Colorado — Boulder University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas University of Alabama — Birmingham Indiana University — Bloomington North Carolina State University Iowa State University University of Georgia University at Stony Brook University of California — Irvine University of Illinois — Chicago University at Buffalo University of California — Santa Barbara University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis University of Colorado Health Sciences Center University of Kansas — Lawrence University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center University of Delaware University of Nebraska — Lincoln University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston

Page 44

Private Support

Research

Number of Measures in Top 25 Among Publics

9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Number of 1999 Total Measures in — Top 26–50 Total Research Research Control Rank Among x $1000 Publics

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 3 2 2 4 4 3 3 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 7 5 5 4 4 3 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 2 2 1

451,539 477,620 304,447 508,619 252,767 333,874 358,247 356,529 157,487 482,659 462,725 258,122 263,725 322,810 320,245 417,095 402,203 461,632 249,477 307,950 257,628 226,411 153,843 190,316 207,135 207,912 184,237 165,520 232,115 77,916 270,621 161,301 237,493 148,982 141,842 175,093 166,823 104,561 153,002 116,874 130,450 73,831 155,126 73,521 131,046 93,580

6 3 15 1 20 11 9 10 36 2 4 18 17 12 13 7 8 5 21 14 19 24 39 27 26 25 28 33 23 76 16 34 22 43 45 29 32 59 40 52 49 79 38 80 48 65

1999 — Federal Research x $1000

191,025 251,999 122,296 334,226 182,935 175,212 185,767 207,761 108,495 368,112 249,961 164,913 112,861 135,216 178,126 233,181 149,151 292,007 194,618 124,463 145,081 95,708 111,716 67,341 122,638 89,835 140,959 101,996 165,223 40,905 66,310 54,179 56,080 93,937 75,505 86,406 85,490 74,026 100,325 61,357 101,044 33,176 69,413 34,628 36,977 55,061

Federal Research Control Rank

9 4 22 2 11 13 10 7 25 1 5 15 23 19 12 6 16 3 8 20 17 29 24 45 21 33 18 26 14 68 46 58 53 30 40 34 35 42 28 49 27 77 44 75 71 56

2000 — Endowment Assets x $1000

Endowment Control Rank

2,168,671 1,447,371 681,370 3,329,637 1,105,254 781,038 585,879 1,809,305 1,738,984 911,804 1,080,363 1,611,050 1,141,666 1,294,923 285,356 912,258 3,932,469 292,730 1,018,015 395,346 319,061 1,301,976 317,268 400,259 424,159 310,289 238,960 713,253 228,740 499,105 312,840 410,704 388,422 38,145 128,738 119,007 447,322 85,866 963,907 381,134 119,480 684,362 300,480 911,521 590,875 342,602

3 7 21 2 11 18 23 4 5 16 12 6 10 9 54 15 1 51 13 32 42 8 43 31 28 45 63 19 67 24 44 30 34 165 93 98 26 114 14 36 97 20 47 17 22 41

To p P u b l i c R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s ( 1 – 2 5 )

Private Support 2000 — Annual Giving x $1000

166,844 253,765 163,600 221,381 164,640 125,958 107,504 193,950 195,284 225,575 280,182 201,637 107,465 174,329 91,711 218,320 110,426 112,792 82,030 76,768 56,119 84,358 144,016 73,945 83,894 121,287 57,284 115,033 56,864 100,797 74,363 130,022 45,739 20,080 67,254 38,509 28,287 24,111 61,671 90,718 28,642 62,793 63,526 44,679 47,615 34,969

Giving Control Rank

10 2 12 4 11 15 20 8 7 3 1 6 21 9 24 5 19 18 30 32 44 27 13 34 28 16 42 17 43 22 33 14 55 103 37 64 79 89 40 25 78 39 38 56 53 71

Advanced Training

Faculty 2000 — National Academy Members

190 61 17 60 33 22 53 36 22 71 68 52 22 13 27 64 15 91 17 25 18 17 19 26 18 6 24 22 9 10 15 7 8 12 21 5 5 32 2 5 7 7 1 10 2 2

National Academy Control Rank

1 6 25 7 11 17 8 10 17 3 4 9 17 30 13 5 28 2 25 15 23 25 22 14 23 46 16 17 37 33 28 41 40 31 21 50 50 12 70 50 41 41 83 33 70 70

2000 — Faculty Awards

59 51 27 32 29 16 33 31 25 37 25 28 15 19 18 31 11 29 11 19 12 19 19 19 11 15 15 19 15 11 14 6 11 17 12 16 16 9 8 4 9 14 2 9 5 1

Faculty Awards Control Rank

1 2 11 5 8 22 4 6 12 3 12 10 25 14 20 6 36 8 36 14 34 14 14 14 36 25 25 14 25 36 29 60 36 21 34 22 22 45 52 88 45 29 129 45 74 183

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

2000 — Doctorates Granted

756 606 516 629 425 513 597 604 343 486 729 659 230 620 405 77 490 294 316 357 461 468 215 371 317 444 266 55 125 409 316 238 352 244 202 201 303 232 238 43 44 246 NA 164 251 35

Doctorates Control Rank

1 6 9 4 16 10 8 7 22 12 2 3 47 5 18 98 11 28 24 20 14 13 49 19 23 15 35 119 72 17 24 44 21 43 51 52 27 46 44 133 131 41 58 39 140

1999 — Postdoctoral Appointees

Undergraduate Postdocs Control Rank

933 851 344 728 568 246 246 518 339 1057 440 246 0 264 451 1117 267 968 432 204 220 228 295 151 279 258 274 229 280 143 203 179 179 400 324 264 246 158 224 255 285 130 392 129 110 263

Page 45

4 5 14 6 7 29 29 8 15 2 10 29 177 23 9 1 22 3 11 38 36 34 17 50 20 26 21 33 19 51 39 43 43 12 16 23 29 48 35 27 18 56 13 57 61 25

1999 — Median SAT

1315 1285 1265 1270 1245 1205 1250 1185 1310 1160 1195 1195 1320 1140 1100 NA 1180 1180 1145 1170 1240 1100 1130 1205 1190 1110 1160 NA 1010 1095 1175 1210 1195 1120 1145 1070 1110 1185 1050 945 NA 1110 NA 1140 1150 NA

SAT Control Rank

3 6 10 8 15 23 13 37 4 47 30 30 1 60 99 39 39 57 43 16 99 69 23 34 86 47 241 105 42 21 30 78 57 135 86 37 162 371 86 60 53

Top Private Research Universities (26–50) Institutions in Order of Top 26–50 Score, then Alphabetically Syracuse University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Tulane University Saint Louis University — St. Louis Wake Forest University Medical College of Wisconsin Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science Howard University Northeastern University Rush University University of Dayton Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Number of Measures in Top 26–50 Among Privates

8 7 7 6 6 4 3 3 3 3 3 3

1999 — Total Research x $1000

39,640 39,034 87,324 27,817 82,827 61,446 24,484 23,557 30,209 60,957 36,937 71,722

Top Public Research Universities (26–50) Institutions in Order of Top 26–50 Score, then Alphabetically University of Missouri — Columbia Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University University of Kentucky Colorado State University University of Houston — University Park Washington State University — Pullman Arizona State University — Tempe Florida State University Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge Oregon Health Sciences University Oregon State University University of Hawaii — Manoa University of Maryland — Baltimore University of Massachusetts — Amherst University of South Carolina — Columbia University of Texas Health Science Center - — Houston Wayne State University Texas Tech University University of California — Santa Cruz University of Massachusetts Medical Sch — Worcester University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey University of Oklahoma - — Norman University of Oregon West Virginia University Clemson University Medical University of South Carolina Temple University University of Connecticut — Storrs University of New Mexico — Albuquerque University of South Florida University of Tennessee — Knoxville

Page 46

Private Support

Research Total Research Control Rank

1999 — Federal Research x $1000

41 42 30 48 31 37 50 53 45 38 43 34

30,050 22,803 50,779 23,722 60,293 47,087 22,212 21,658 22,776 31,119 30,755 59,534

Federal Research Control Rank

2000 — Endowment Assets x $1000

Endowment Control Rank

41 45 32 43 29 34 47 48 46 39 40 30

825,250 729,973 636,350 925,955 969,618 65,307 2,200 308,972 518,536 347,611 297,297 278,829

43 48 55 35 33 260 549 96 61 85 99 102

Private Support

Research Number of Measures in Top 26–50 Among Publics

7 7 6 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1999 — Total Research x $1000

149,002 169,250 174,034 150,281 43,370 96,943 107,184 97,673 158,672 112,197 139,285 156,810 140,903 86,576 105,835 105,307 146,832 58,488 52,902 83,040 126,277 79,568 32,695 63,392 99,341 55,819 66,777 75,592 115,850 123,961 101,717

Total Research Control Rank

42 31 30 41 107 63 56 62 35 54 47 37 46 68 57 58 44 90 97 71 50 75 117 84 61 93 81 78 53 51 60

1999 — Federal Research x $1000

53,875 75,386 66,184 91,943 20,443 44,610 53,905 55,666 37,291 76,033 81,649 93,418 84,516 39,877 48,490 71,288 57,610 20,242 25,084 55,516 61,730 29,370 27,336 26,264 27,064 30,997 29,734 23,863 84,976 42,005 44,920

Federal Research Control Rank

2000 — Endowment Assets x $1000

Endowment Control Rank

60 41 47 32 104 66 59 54 70 39 38 31 37 69 61 43 50 106 92 55 48 82 85 89 86 79 81 98 36 67 65

379,095 368,197 370,125 104,777 390,617 437,093 215,594 288,500 189,813 246,349 266,324 172,985 149,560 65,247 267,740 96,519 158,841 293,407 85,285 41,521 140,341 417,909 251,359 299,825 236,348 81,408 156,762 125,638 202,558 237,027 258,000

37 40 39 106 33 27 71 53 74 61 56 79 86 129 55 110 83 49 115 157 90 29 59 48 66 119 84 95 72 65 58

To p P r i v a t e / P u b l i c R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s ( 2 6 – 5 0 )

Private Support 2000 — Annual Giving x $1000

42,814 42,716 66,000 31,662 42,502 17,800 NR NR 31,089 NR 27,205 15,588

Faculty

Giving Control Rank

44 45 33 61 46 108

64 72 125

2000 — National Academy Members

1 11 3 1 2 1 2 5 0 2 1 5

Private Support 2000 — Annual Giving x $1000

39,212 55,610 48,382 22,465 80,777 45,808 69,026 68,203 33,400 51,535 37,178 22,844 29,419 21,117 52,357 23,880 40,000 59,474 15,564 13,159 22,400 51,244 48,584 52,855 82,929 16,714 39,721 31,755 30,879 40,809 48,004

Giving Control Rank

63 45 51 95 31 54 35 36 72 48 68 93 76 101 47 90 60 41 113 126 96 49 50 46 29 108 61 73 74 58 52

National Academy Control Rank

2000 — Faculty Awards

50 27 40 50 43 50 43 34 76 43 50 34

Faculty Awards Control Rank

7 8 9 0 2 1 0 1 4 0 0 0

32 30 29 212 71 101 212 101 44 212 212 212

2000 — Doctorates Granted

147 93 126 123 28 11 0 121 76 44 31 NA

Faculty 2000 — National Academy Members

5 11 4 6 7 7 3 6 1 4 5 5 9 10 1 5 3 0 10 2 2 3 5 0 1 2 1 1 4 3 1

National Academy Control Rank

50 32 58 46 41 41 61 46 83 58 50 50 37 33 83 50 61 112 33 70 70 61 50 112 83 70 83 83 58 61 83

Undergraduate

Advanced Training Doctorates Control Rank

31 51 34 36 117 179 308 39 58 86 108

1999 — Postdoctoral Appointees

Postdocs Control Rank

1999 — Median SAT

46 44 40 45 35 37 88 51 56 58 82 54

1200 1275 1290 1160 1300 NA NR 1105 1125 NA 1150 NA

37 46 64 38 96 94 0 33 26 25 2 27

Faculty Awards Control Rank

9 7 14 5 6 9 11 2 10 11 6 4 5 13 10 4 6 5 7 9 6 2 5 2 6 1 5 8 6 9 6

45 54 29 74 60 45 36 129 43 36 60 88 74 32 43 88 60 74 54 45 60 129 74 129 60 183 74 52 60 45 60

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

2000 — Doctorates Granted

256 309 249 180 204 118 286 263 275 38 158 153 73 276 246 87 222 141 90 20 69 167 138 132 116 25 263 275 184 131 286

Doctorates Control Rank

38 26 40 56 50 75 29 36 33 138 60 63 102 32 41 89 48 65 86 166 107 57 66 67 76 158 36 33 55 70 29

1999 — Postdoctoral Appointees

127 67 63 178 59

311 258 202

Undergraduate

Advanced Training

2000 — Faculty Awards

SAT Control Rank

Postdocs Control Rank

1999 — Median SAT

49 62 41 27 83 47 75 67 79 72 71 90 53 51 74 46 55 69 58 37 60 81 64 151 127 42 59 85 68 84 63

1200 1165 1125 1130 1025 1055 1105 1150 1090 NA 1085 1090 NA 1135 1100 NA 970 1075 1160 NA NA 1110 1115 1020 1135 NA 1040 1130 1070 1084 1100

152 108 186 255 64 163 75 99 72 84 85 55 140 143 82 170 135 88 120 214 112 68 106 7 17 185 113 59 92 62 107

Page 47

SAT Control Rank

27 45 75 69 222 152 95 53 111 120 111 65 99 323 129 47

86 81 226 65 180 69 135 126 99

Page 48

Part II TheCenter Research Universities TheCenter’s Research Universities consist of academic institutions that had more than $20 million in federal research expenditures in FY 1999. In the following tables, institutions are listed alphabetically with the most current data available on each measure, their rank on each measure, and the prior year ranks. TheCenter provides both the national rank (rank among all universities) and the control rank (rank within private or public universities). In addition to the nine performance variables presented in The Top American Research Universities tables, these tables also include other institutional characteristics related to student enrollment, medical schools, land grant status, ownership, research focus, and National Merit and National Achievement Scholars. The Source Notes section of this report provides detailed information on each data element. Tables in this section include: • Research presents total and federal research expenditures and a breakdown of federal research by major discipline.

• Private Support and Faculty Quality includes endowment assets, annual giving, National Academy members, and faculty awards.

• Advanced Training and Undergraduate Quality covers doctorates granted, postdoctoral appointees, SAT scores, and National Merit and Achievement Scholars. • Change provides trend data on federal research (1990 and 1999) and endowment assets (1994 and 2000) in constant dollars, and student headcount enrollment (1990 and 1999).

• Institutional Characteristics and TheCenter Measures includes state location, highest degree offered, medical school and land grant status, research focus (summary of federal research by discipline), and total student enrollment. Also presented is the number of times a university ranks in the top 25 (or 26–50) on the nine quality measures this year (2001 Report) as compared to last year (2000 Report). • Student Characteristics provides headcount enrollment data broken out by level (i.e., undergraduate, graduate, first-professional), parttime enrollment by level, and degrees awarded. Data found in these tables may not always match the figures published by the original source. TheCenter makes adjustments, when necessary, to ensure that the data reflect the activity at a single campus rather than that of a multiple campus institution or state university system. When data are missing from the original source, TheCenter may substitute another figure if available. A full discussion of this subject, and the various adjustments or substitutions made to the original data, is in the Data Notes section of this report. The prior year’s ranks may differ slightly from our last report due to revised figures or estimates from the data source or institution. TheCenter’s website [http://thecenter.ufl.edu] provides these same tables in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets for ease of analysis. In addition, similar tables containing data on all institutions with any federal research in 1999 are available online.

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 49

Research Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private

Federal

Total

Arizona State University — Tempe Auburn University — Auburn Baylor College of Medicine Boston University Brandeis University Brown University California Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University Case Western Reserve University Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science Clemson University Colorado State University Columbia University Cornell University Dartmouth College Duke University Emory University Florida A&M University Florida State University George Washington University Georgetown University Georgia Institute of Technology Harvard University Howard University Indiana University — Bloomington Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis Iowa State University Johns Hopkins University Kansas State University Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology Medical College of Wisconsin Medical University of South Carolina Michigan State University Mississippi State University Montana State University — Bozeman Mount Sinai School of Medicine New Jersey Institute of Technology New Mexico State University — Las Cruces New York University North Carolina State University Northeastern University Northwestern University Ohio State University — Columbus Oklahoma State University — Stillwater Oregon Health Sciences University Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University — Hershey Medical Ctr Pennsylvania State University — University Park Princeton University

Page 50

1999 — Total Research x $1000

107,184 80,544 272,198 141,102 48,305 76,330 212,216 142,174 182,332 24,484 99,341 150,281 279,587 395,552 69,522 348,274 189,170 21,622 97,673 66,757 111,426 263,725 326,193 23,557 77,916 116,874 161,301 874,518 85,580 158,672 44,726 420,306 61,446 55,819 207,912 110,896 55,475 127,765 40,982 79,877 167,179 270,621 30,209 233,809 322,810 83,108 112,197 139,285 45,528 333,874 124,237

1999 — National Rank

84 103 27 67 136 109 38 65 44 180 90 60 25 12 115 16 42 197 91 117 82 29 18 185 108 78 53 1 99 54 142 9 124 131 39 83 133 73 151 104 49 28 166 35 19 100 80 70 141 17 75

1999 — Control Rank

56 72 12 22 39 33 14 21 16 50 61 41 10 4 35 6 15 142 62 36 28 17 7 53 76 52 34 1 69 35 103 3 37 93 25 55 95 24 111 73 18 16 45 13 12 70 54 47 102 11 25

1998 — National Rank

93 97 35 70 140 110 41 65 42 208 94 61 25 12 118 21 45 201 88 109 74 27 17 176 115 81 49 1 101 56 137 8 127 124 39 83 131 78 146 104 50 28 170 32 19 112 79 64 142 16 75

1998 — Control Rank

63 66 13 23 41 35 14 20 15 58 64 42 10 4 37 7 17 145 59 34 24 16 6 52 79 54 32 1 70 37 98 2 38 87 26 56 92 27 104 73 18 17 50 12 13 77 52 45 101 11 25

1999 — Federal Research x $1000

1999 — National Rank

53,905 27,058 141,111 123,390 29,423 45,276 195,303 90,408 140,178 22,212 27,064 91,943 240,158 234,792 46,741 186,757 132,816 20,693 55,666 49,944 83,972 112,861 266,019 21,658 40,905 61,357 54,179 770,580 28,102 37,291 24,150 308,921 47,087 30,997 89,835 46,528 26,231 84,624 21,127 56,875 111,124 66,310 22,776 132,647 135,216 23,179 76,033 81,649 23,893 175,212 72,974

Research

90 129 30 39 123 100 18 55 32 147 128 54 11 12 97 21 36 151 85 93 63 43 8 148 105 77 89 1 126 107 137 5 96 118 56 98 132 61 149 82 45 73 146 37 34 144 65 64 139 25 69

1999 Federal Research by Major Discipline

Federal 1999 — Control Rank

59 87 13 19 42 36 11 23 14 47 86 32 6 7 35 12 17 103 54 33 26 23 5 48 68 49 58 1 84 70 95 3 34 79 33 63 90 25 101 52 21 46 46 18 19 100 39 38 97 13 27

1998 — National Rank

105 127 40 43 125 97 18 49 30 162 124 60 11 15 95 19 36 163 90 94 55 39 7 149 106 80 89 1 129 117 136 5 99 107 59 103 135 68 151 82 45 62 150 33 35 139 66 58 143 26 69

1998 — Control Rank

67 84 18 20 43 36 11 23 13 52 82 36 6 8 35 12 17 111 57 34 24 22 4 49 68 50 56 1 86 77 91 3 38 69 35 65 90 26 101 51 22 37 50 15 19 93 41 34 96 14 27

Percent Life Sci

14% 37% 100% 65% 49% 48% 13% 7% 82% 100% 54% 61% 64% 49% 76% 77% 95% 57% 11% 31% 91% 5% 69% 57% 34% 91% 39% 36% 52% 49% 100% 16% 100% 100% 56% 38% 49% 100% 0% 12% 80% 32% 22% 63% 58% 42% 94% 47% 100% 17% 18%

Percent Physical Sci

Percent Enviro Sci

Percent Eng Sci

19% 7% 0% 9% 10% 9% 53% 6% 4% 0% 6% 7% 9% 28% 5% 8% 4% 10% 41% 3% 5% 7% 11% 20% 35% 6% 8% 16% 22% 16% 0% 29% 0% 0% 23% 3% 22% 0% 9% 7% 4% 9% 22% 9% 9% 11% 0% 6% 0% 14% 28%

28% 1% 0% 3% 0% 8% 7% 0% 0% 0% 1% 13% 17% 1% 1% 2% 0% 6% 17% 0% 0% 5% 5% 0% 2% 0% 4% 5% 1% 15% 0% 7% 0% 0% 1% 5% 2% 0% 19% 5% 0% 9% 0% 0% 4% 2% 0% 33% 0% 9% 9%

26% 42% 0% 12% 0% 12% 19% 27% 13% 0% 31% 7% 6% 13% 12% 6% 0% 18% 13% 15% 0% 65% 2% 9% 0% 0% 24% 29% 16% 16% 0% 36% 0% 0% 5% 45% 16% 0% 53% 67% 0% 41% 43% 23% 15% 25% 0% 12% 0% 46% 31%

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Percent Computer Sci

2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 7% 5% 43% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 5% 3% 1% 0% 9% 4% 0% 0% 12% 0% 5% 2% 0% 2% 9% 1% 1% 0% 9% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 0% 6% 7% 3% 2% 4% 1% 2% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3%

Percent Math

Percent Psychology

1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 11% 0% 3% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 27% 0% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 5% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 5% 4% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2%

Page 51

8% 3% 0% 2% 4% 3% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 13% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 4% 1% 5% 1% 2% 1% 6% 0% 0% 4% 6%

Percent Social Sci

Percent Other Sci

3% 2% 0% 1% 33% 2% 0% 7% 1% 0% 4% 1% 2% 2% 1% 4% 0% 0% 5% 3% 3% 1% 5% 4% 11% 1% 16% 1% 3% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 11% 4% 6% 0% 0% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 9% 12% 0% 0% 0% 7% 4%

1% 7% 0% 6% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 1% 5% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% 0% 11% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Research Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically continued Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public

Federal

Total

Purdue University — West Lafayette Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rice University Rockefeller University Rush University Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick Saint Louis University — St. Louis Stanford University State Univ. of New York Downstate Medical Center Syracuse University Temple University Texas A&M University Texas Tech University Thomas Jefferson University Tufts University Tulane University University at Albany University at Buffalo University at Stony Brook University of Alabama — Birmingham University of Alabama — Huntsville University of Alaska — Fairbanks University of Arizona University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences University of California — Berkeley University of California — Davis University of California — Irvine University of California — Los Angeles University of California — San Diego University of California — San Francisco University of California — Santa Barbara University of California — Santa Cruz University of Chicago University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati University of Colorado — Boulder University of Colorado Health Sciences Center University of Connecticut — Health Center University of Connecticut — Storrs University of Dayton University of Delaware University of Florida University of Georgia University of Hawaii — Manoa University of Houston — University Park University of Idaho University of Illinois — Chicago University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign University of Iowa University of Kansas — Lawrence University of Kansas Medical Center University of Kentucky

Page 52

1999 — Total Research x $1000

226,411 39,034 41,069 121,519 60,957 190,316 27,817 426,549 28,840 39,640 66,777 402,203 58,488 78,410 101,728 87,324 64,278 166,823 148,982 232,115 40,203 88,825 320,245 44,066 451,539 307,950 141,842 477,620 461,632 417,095 104,561 52,902 162,805 153,002 184,237 130,450 59,394 75,592 36,937 73,521 304,447 237,493 156,810 43,370 62,531 175,093 358,247 207,135 73,831 58,921 174,034

1999 — National Rank

37 154 150 77 125 41 172 8 169 153 116 11 128 107 88 97 118 50 63 36 152 95 20 145 7 22 66 4 6 10 87 135 52 59 43 72 126 111 155 113 23 34 56 146 121 46 14 40 112 127 47

1999 — Control Rank

24 42 40 26 38 27 48 2 123 41 81 8 90 32 29 30 82 32 43 23 112 66 13 106 6 14 45 3 5 7 59 97 19 40 28 49 88 78 43 80 15 22 37 107 85 29 9 26 79 89 30

1998 — National Rank

36 151 145 76 128 43 168 9 167 154 119 10 129 114 92 96 133 53 59 31 155 106 18 149 6 20 69 3 7 11 85 126 54 48 40 72 121 107 139 113 22 34 55 143 122 52 15 38 117 135 47

1998 — Control Rank

23 43 42 26 39 28 49 3 119 45 82 7 90 36 30 31 94 35 40 20 110 74 12 107 5 14 47 2 6 8 57 89 19 31 27 49 84 75 40 78 15 22 36 102 85 34 10 25 81 96 30

1999 — Federal Research x $1000

1999 — National Rank

95,708 22,803 35,012 45,010 31,119 67,341 23,722 353,947 21,053 30,050 29,734 149,151 20,242 56,369 63,618 50,779 46,242 85,490 93,937 165,223 25,166 34,647 178,126 26,392 191,025 124,463 75,505 251,999 292,007 233,181 74,026 25,084 135,720 100,325 140,959 101,044 31,633 23,863 30,755 34,628 122,296 56,080 93,418 20,443 24,263 86,406 185,767 122,638 33,176 24,096 66,184

Research

51 145 111 101 117 72 142 3 150 121 122 28 154 83 75 92 99 59 52 26 133 112 24 130 20 38 66 9 6 13 68 134 33 50 31 49 116 140 119 113 41 84 53 152 136 58 22 40 115 138 74

1999 Federal Research by Major Discipline

Federal 1999 — Control Rank

29 45 38 37 39 45 43 2 102 41 81 16 106 31 28 32 64 35 30 14 91 74 12 88 9 20 40 4 3 6 42 92 15 28 18 27 78 98 40 75 22 53 31 104 94 34 10 21 77 96 47

1998 — National Rank

50 147 110 98 123 74 138 2 156 120 122 28 159 88 75 86 111 64 51 24 137 115 27 146 20 38 71 10 6 12 70 119 34 52 29 53 118 142 108 112 41 84 54 144 155 65 22 37 121 148 77

1998 — Control Rank

27 48 40 37 42 46 46 2 106 41 81 16 108 33 29 32 71 39 28 12 92 75 15 99 8 21 44 5 3 6 43 79 16 29 17 30 78 95 39 72 23 53 31 97 105 40 10 20 80 100 47

Percent Life Sci

Percent Physical Sci

Percent Enviro Sci

36% 4% 11% 95% 97% 32% 98% 49% 100% 11% 73% 29% 28% 100% 85% 82% 74% 67% 52% 93% 1% 18% 45% 100% 34% 79% 65% 67% 46% 100% 7% 22% 67% 83% 10% 100% 100% 30% 0% 12% 62% 75% 39% 26% 67% 78% 18% 79% 45% 100% 70%

14% 20% 25% 5% 0% 16% 0% 14% 0% 17% 4% 8% 13% 0% 4% 3% 4% 6% 18% 1% 25% 47% 30% 0% 29% 8% 16% 11% 9% 0% 22% 33% 24% 3% 25% 0% 0% 11% 5% 21% 11% 5% 14% 24% 3% 6% 18% 9% 17% 0% 5%

3% 3% 11% 0% 0% 12% 2% 2% 0% 3% 0% 36% 7% 0% 0% 1% 6% 0% 14% 0% 17% 23% 4% 0% 2% 1% 3% 3% 23% 0% 22% 24% 3% 0% 43% 0% 0% 17% 1% 18% 2% 9% 35% 0% 8% 0% 6% 0% 7% 0% 1%

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Percent Eng Sci

38% 65% 16% 0% 0% 19% 0% 28% 0% 23% 1% 21% 34% 0% 6% 6% 0% 17% 7% 3% 34% 7% 14% 0% 27% 8% 6% 12% 9% 0% 37% 9% 0% 13% 11% 0% 0% 25% 92% 34% 17% 1% 6% 27% 13% 7% 29% 7% 17% 0% 15%

Percent Computer Sci

Percent Math

Percent Psychology

Percent Social Sci

3% 3% 30% 0% 0% 4% 0% 4% 0% 29% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 3% 2% 0% 16% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 4% 2% 10% 0% 2% 5% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 1% 0% 9% 0% 1% 23% 0% 3% 0% 1%

2% 4% 6% 0% 0% 8% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 4% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 1% 0% 3% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1%

2% 0% 1% 0% 3% 5% 0% 1% 0% 5% 7% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 5% 5% 2% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 0% 2% 2% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 10% 1% 3% 3% 4% 1% 10% 0% 3% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1%

3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 7% 14% 3% 12% 0% 1% 3% 9% 1% 1% 0% 0% 5% 3% 0% 3% 0% 3% 1% 2% 0% 6% 3% 3% 1% 3% 0% 0% 5% 0% 7% 2% 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 2%

Page 53

Percent Other Sci

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 5% 3% 2% 0% 8% 0% 4%

Research Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically continued Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Private

Federal

Total

University of Maryland — Baltimore University of Maryland — College Park University of Massachusetts — Amherst University of Massachusetts Medical Sch — Worcester University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey University of Miami University of Michigan — Ann Arbor University of Minnesota — Twin Cities University of Missouri — Columbia University of Nebraska — Lincoln University of Nevada — Reno University of New Hampshire — Durham University of New Mexico — Albuquerque University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill University of Notre Dame University of Oklahoma — Norman University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh University of Puerto Rico — Mayaguez University of Rhode Island — Kingston University of Rochester University of South Carolina — Columbia University of South Florida University of Southern California University of Tennessee — Knoxville University of Tennessee Health Science Center University of Texas — Austin University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas University of Utah University of Vermont University of Virginia University of Washington — Seattle University of Wisconsin — Madison US Naval Postgraduate School Utah State University Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Wake Forest University Washington State University — Pullman Washington University Wayne State University West Virginia University Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Yale University Yeshiva University

Page 54

1999 — Total Research x $1000

140,903 257,628 86,576 83,040 126,277 139,608 508,619 356,529 149,002 131,046 47,939 57,613 115,850 252,767 30,483 79,568 62,517 32,695 383,569 249,477 55,648 44,452 177,126 105,835 123,961 280,741 101,717 46,090 258,122 105,307 87,804 155,126 93,580 165,520 153,843 64,049 157,487 482,659 462,725 34,095 95,364 149,675 79,785 169,250 82,827 96,943 315,606 146,832 63,392 71,722 274,050 111,771

1999 — National Rank

68 31 98 101 74 69 2 15 62 71 137 129 79 32 165 106 122 160 13 33 132 144 45 85 76 24 89 139 30 86 96 57 94 51 58 119 55 3 5 158 93 61 105 48 102 92 21 64 120 114 26 81

1999 — Control Rank

46 19 68 71 50 23 1 10 42 48 98 91 53 20 44 75 86 117 5 21 94 105 17 57 51 9 60 100 18 58 67 38 65 33 39 83 36 2 4 115 64 20 74 31 31 63 8 44 84 34 11 27

1998 — National Rank

57 33 95 99 77 66 2 13 67 73 138 130 71 30 166 116 123 159 14 37 132 152 44 91 80 24 90 141 29 82 100 60 98 51 58 125 62 5 4 158 89 68 102 46 105 87 23 63 120 108 26 84

1998 — Control Rank

38 21 65 68 51 21 1 9 46 50 99 91 48 19 48 80 86 113 5 24 93 109 16 62 53 9 61 100 18 55 69 41 67 33 39 88 43 4 3 112 60 22 71 29 32 58 8 44 83 33 11 28

1999 — Federal Research x $1000

1999 — National Rank

84,516 145,081 39,877 55,516 61,730 101,883 334,226 207,761 53,875 36,977 24,587 30,586 84,976 182,935 23,614 29,370 28,219 27,336 279,013 194,618 23,784 36,207 132,852 48,490 42,005 199,619 44,920 20,354 164,913 71,288 56,904 69,413 55,061 101,996 111,716 36,085 108,495 368,112 249,961 33,308 54,433 116,887 48,175 75,386 60,293 44,610 218,598 57,610 26,264 59,534 213,404 89,680

Research

62 29 106 86 76 48 4 16 91 108 135 120 60 23 143 124 125 127 7 19 141 109 35 94 104 17 102 153 27 70 81 71 87 47 44 110 46 2 10 114 88 42 95 67 78 103 14 80 131 79 15 57

1999 Federal Research by Major Discipline

Federal 1999 — Control Rank

37 17 69 55 48 22 2 7 60 71 93 80 36 11 44 82 83 85 4 8 99 72 16 61 67 10 65 105 15 43 51 44 56 26 24 73 25 1 5 76 57 20 62 41 29 66 8 50 89 30 9 24

1998 — National Rank

1998 — Control Rank

63 32 101 85 78 44 4 14 93 104 152 132 56 21 140 126 131 128 8 23 145 113 31 102 109 16 100 153 25 67 87 73 91 48 46 116 47 3 9 113 83 42 92 57 81 96 17 79 133 72 13 61

38 18 63 54 48 21 2 7 60 66 102 88 32 9 47 83 87 85 5 11 98 73 14 64 70 9 62 103 13 42 55 45 58 26 24 76 25 1 4 73 52 19 59 33 31 61 10 49 89 28 7 25

Percent Life Sci

Percent Physical Sci

Percent Enviro Sci

100% 8% 27% 100% 100% 63% 55% 71% 69% 38% 51% 15% 34% 76% 12% 2% 97% 45% 82% 86% 72% 20% 57% 26% 52% 47% 35% 100% 12% 100% 100% 95% 99% 100% 61% 87% 62% 67% 54% 0% 27% 78% 88% 25% 98% 63% 88% 82% 40% 0% 86% 100%

0% 23% 23% 0% 0% 2% 5% 7% 5% 15% 15% 6% 9% 7% 50% 22% 0% 24% 8% 5% 5% 2% 9% 14% 1% 4% 17% 0% 29% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 11% 2% 10% 5% 12% 6% 6% 11% 5% 6% 1% 10% 3% 8% 11% 0% 8% 0%

0% 4% 7% 0% 0% 25% 1% 3% 1% 19% 19% 59% 2% 3% 0% 46% 0% 7% 0% 0% 12% 56% 0% 14% 26% 4% 13% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 4% 15% 7% 24% 12% 0% 0% 27% 0% 3% 1% 0% 5% 84% 1% 0%

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Percent Eng Sci

0% 29% 14% 0% 0% 1% 25% 12% 11% 12% 7% 9% 25% 0% 30% 11% 0% 2% 4% 2% 9% 7% 27% 26% 12% 16% 25% 0% 37% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 12% 2% 16% 6% 14% 27% 50% 6% 3% 34% 0% 17% 3% 5% 39% 16% 2% 0%

Percent Computer Sci

Percent Math

0% 10% 18% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% 11% 3% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 23% 6% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 1% 4% 1% 2% 12% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%

0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 9% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Percent Psychology

Page 55

0% 1% 7% 0% 0% 6% 1% 2% 6% 0% 3% 4% 4% 2% 3% 11% 3% 7% 1% 2% 0% 11% 3% 6% 7% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3% 2% 6% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0%

Percent Social Sci

Percent Other Sci

0% 24% 0% 0% 0% 3% 11% 1% 7% 9% 3% 5% 3% 9% 1% 7% 0% 4% 2% 2% 0% 1% 1% 5% 1% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 5% 14% 1% 3% 1% 3% 0% 7% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0% 5% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 9% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0%

Private Support and Faculty Quality Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private

Arizona State University — Tempe Auburn University — Auburn Baylor College of Medicine Boston University Brandeis University Brown University California Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University Case Western Reserve University Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science Clemson University Colorado State University Columbia University Cornell University Dartmouth College Duke University Emory University Florida A&M University Florida State University George Washington University Georgetown University Georgia Institute of Technology Harvard University Howard University Indiana University — Bloomington Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis Iowa State University Johns Hopkins University Kansas State University Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology Medical College of Wisconsin Medical University of South Carolina Michigan State University Mississippi State University Montana State University — Bozeman Mount Sinai School of Medicine New Jersey Institute of Technology New Mexico State University — Las Cruces New York University North Carolina State University Northeastern University Northwestern University Ohio State University — Columbus Oklahoma State University — Stillwater Oregon Health Sciences University Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University — Hershey Medical Ctr Pennsylvania State University — University Park Princeton University

Page 56

Annual Giving

Endowment Assets 2000 — Endowment Assets x $1000

215,594 238,170 1,044,685 913,207 406,722 1,416,052 1,535,702 829,121 1,550,600 2,200 236,348 104,777 4,263,972 3,436,926 2,490,376 2,663,891 5,032,683 NR 288,500 737,647 745,398 1,141,666 18,844,338 308,972 499,105 381,134 410,704 1,825,212 188,054 189,813 21,840 6,475,506 65,307 81,408 310,289 153,750 42,606 NR 40,932 52,444 1,030,800 312,840 518,536 3,368,233 1,294,923 166,885 246,349 266,324 97,630 781,038 8,398,100

2000 — National Rank

2000 — Control Rank

189 174 41 50 105 29 27 59 26 660 177 310 7 11 18 17 6

71 64 29 36 75 22 21 42 20 549 66 106 7 10 16 15 6

152 65 64 36 1 141 85 116 103 22 205 203 564 5 388 356 140 238 465

53 47 46 10 1 96 24 36 30 19 76 74 198 5 260 119 45 85 153

474 431 43 139 84 13 33 222 168 161 316 62 4

158 141 31 44 61 12 9 82 61 56 108 18 4

1999 — National Rank

192 159 34 63 107 29 27 55 24 NR 170 318 8 12 18 19 5 NR 153 62 57 37 1 131 94 111 142 22 215 196 573 6 380 327 143 205 NR NR 478 416 33 133 95 14 32 209 168 157 335 66 3

1999 — Control Rank

69 54 25 46 78 22 21 39 20 NR 58 107 8 11 16 17 5 NR 52 45 40 10 1 90 27 33 45 19 77 71 212 6 254 111 46 73 NR NR 158 137 24 42 68 13 9 74 57 53 114 18 3

2000 — Annual Giving x $1000

69,026 37,301 92,078 73,428 61,704 93,077 117,561 71,671 109,933 NR 82,929 22,465 292,268 308,676 116,128 407,953 101,430 NR 68,203 40,350 92,837 107,465 485,238 NR 100,797 90,718 130,022 304,044 40,331 33,400 NR 238,426 17,800 16,714 121,287 26,720 12,000 NR 7,700 8,452 236,620 74,363 31,089 203,069 174,329 37,984 51,535 37,178 12,800 125,958 166,189

2000 — National Rank

2000 — Control Rank

65 119 48 62 74 46 33 64 38

35 67 25 28 35 23 17 30 19

55 177 7 5 34 3 41

29 95 7 5 18 3 20

66 107 47 40 2

36 49 24 21 2

42 50 29 6 108 128

22 25 14 6 59 72

12 214 223 32 156 289

10 108 108 16 83 134

426 383 13 59 137 17 22 115 87 120 272 31 24

177 159 11 33 64 12 9 65 48 68 127 15 14

Private Support and Faculty Quality

Annual Giving 1999 — National Rank

Faculty Awards

National Academy Membership

1999 — Control Rank

87 109 62 54 94 52 25 102 51 NR 122 162 5 2 38 3 8 NR 71 92 44 43 1 NR 47 55 82 14 115 107 NR 12

46 58 31 28 46 27 15 50 26 NR 67 88 5 2 21 3 7 NR 37 44 23 21 1 NR 24 27 44 11 62 56 NR 10

216 40 139

104 19 76

NR 329 448 29 53 129 24 21 114 118 101 188 37 19

NR 140 173 16 26 58 14 8 61 65 52 97 17 13

2000 — National Academy Members

3 0 12 14 12 17 93 22 23 2 1 6 75 82 15 40 9 0 6 4 5 22 247 5 10 5 7 65 0 1 0 236 1 2 6 0 0 11 0 0 30 15 0 31 13 3 4 5 3 22 73

2000 — National Rank

100 187 55 53 55 46 6 35 34 112 132 78 10 9 50 22 66 187 78 96 83 35 1 83 62 83 72 14 187 132 187 3 132 112 78 187 187 58 187 187 29 50 187 28 54 100 96 83 100 35 11

2000 — Control Rank

61 112 25 24 25 22 5 19 18 43 83 46 8 7 23 13 30 112 46 39 34 17 1 34 33 50 41 10 112 83 112 3 50 70 46 112 112 27 112 112 17 28 76 16 30 61 58 50 61 17 9

1999 — National Rank

100 180 59 49 55 47 6 36 34 122 122 81 11 9 51 22 68 180 69 69 92 43 1 81 69 100 69 15 180 122 180 3 122 112 69 180 180 64 180 122 29 43 180 26 57 100 92 92 100 34 10

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

1999 — Control Rank

61 108 27 23 25 22 5 19 18 47 76 48 9 7 24 13 31 108 38 32 37 23 1 34 38 61 38 10 108 76 108 3 47 68 38 108 108 29 108 76 17 23 73 15 32 61 56 56 61 17 8

2000 — Faculty Awards

11 3 13 20 14 11 14 14 6 0 6 5 38 32 13 31 10 2 2 2 6 15 61 1 11 4 6 35 1 10 3 33 1 1 15 3 5 3 0 7 22 14 4 27 19 6 11 6 4 16 28

2000 — National Rank

2000 — Control Rank

61 158 52 28 46 61 46 46 92 517 92 111 6 12 52 14 69 199 199 199 92 42 1 283 61 131 92 8 283 69 158 10 283 283 42 158 111 158 517 85 27 46 131 23 29 92 61 92 131 39 20

Page 57

36 104 21 15 18 26 18 18 33 212 60 74 4 8 21 9 27 129 129 71 33 25 1 101 36 88 60 5 183 43 104 7 101 183 25 104 74 55 306 54 14 29 44 13 14 60 36 60 88 22 11

1999 — National Rank

65 504 47 45 51 51 40 100 65 504 122 88 13 23 73 13 44 276 122 100 81 88 1 148 51 81 122 9 276 73 187 9 100 187 65 148 148 100 187 122 19 88 122 27 27 276 65 122 88 31 24

1999 — Control Rank

40 286 21 19 22 22 17 36 26 219 82 56 8 12 29 8 18 163 82 36 31 56 1 51 30 51 82 6 163 45 119 6 36 119 40 98 98 36 119 82 11 56 41 14 14 163 40 82 56 16 13

Private Support and Faculty Quality Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically continued Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public

Purdue University — West Lafayette Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rice University Rockefeller University Rush University Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick Saint Louis University — St. Louis Stanford University State Univ. of New York Downstate Medical Center Syracuse University Temple University Texas A&M University Texas Tech University Thomas Jefferson University Tufts University Tulane University University at Albany University at Buffalo University at Stony Brook University of Alabama — Birmingham University of Alabama — Huntsville University of Alaska — Fairbanks University of Arizona University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences University of California — Berkeley University of California — Davis University of California — Irvine University of California — Los Angeles University of California — San Diego University of California — San Francisco University of California — Santa Barbara University of California — Santa Cruz University of Chicago University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati University of Colorado — Boulder University of Colorado Health Sciences Center University of Connecticut — Health Center University of Connecticut — Storrs University of Dayton University of Delaware University of Florida University of Georgia University of Hawaii — Manoa University of Houston — University Park University of Idaho University of Illinois — Chicago University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign University of Iowa University of Kansas — Lawrence University of Kansas Medical Center University of Kentucky

Page 58

Annual Giving

Endowment Assets 2000 — Endowment Assets x $1000

1,301,976 729,973 3,372,458 1,372,200 347,611 400,259 925,955 8,649,475 37,710 825,250 156,762 3,932,469 293,407 400,000 523,520 636,350 10,337 447,322 38,145 228,740 20,456 97,134 285,356 64,079 2,168,671 395,346 128,738 1,447,371 292,730 912,258 85,866 85,285 3,828,664 963,907 238,960 119,480 53,845 125,638 297,297 911,521 681,370 388,422 172,985 390,617 108,217 119,007 585,879 424,159 684,362 171,090 370,125

2000 — National Rank

32 66 12 30 125 108 49 3 494 60 235 9 148 114 83 76 629 95 491 179 577 318 153 394 20 110 268 28 150 52 341 344 10 47 173 284 428 273 147 54 70 113 216 112 304 285 79 100 69 218 120

2000 — Control Rank

8 48 11 23 85 31 35 3 168 43 84 1 49 78 60 55 235 26 165 67 203 109 54 131 3 32 93 7 51 15 114 115 9 14 63 97 140 95 99 17 21 34 79 33 103 98 23 28 20 80 39

1999 — National Rank

28 80 11 36 112 109 42 4 461 64 232 9 181 98 84 76 580 85 523 175 551 307 135 NR 20 129 297 31 179 56 297 404 13 44 182 301 432 299 154 52 70 119 226 103 277 283 78 82 68 214 121

1999 — Control Rank

7 58 10 27 79 31 30 4 150 47 83 1 66 71 61 55 217 24 183 61 195 104 43 NR 3 41 99 8 65 17 99 134 12 13 67 102 140 101 102 15 20 36 80 29 93 95 22 23 19 76 38

2000 — Annual Giving x $1000

84,358 42,716 73,651 60,179 NR 73,945 31,662 580,474 900 42,814 39,721 110,426 59,474 31,000 72,990 66,000 16,215 28,287 20,080 56,864 10,503 9,429 91,711 27,600 166,844 76,768 67,254 253,765 112,792 218,320 24,111 15,564 177,619 61,671 57,284 28,642 5,200 31,755 27,205 44,679 163,600 45,739 22,844 80,777 27,396 38,509 107,504 83,894 62,793 15,698 48,382

2000 — National Rank

2000 — Control Rank

53 102 61 76

27 45 27 36

60 134 1 921 101 110 37 78 138 63 70 231 148 198 82 323 352 49 149 23 58 69 10 36 16 168 238 21 75 81 145 556 133 154 98 26 97 172 57 151 114 39 54 73 236 93

34 61 1 362 44 61 19 41 65 29 33 109 79 103 43 144 153 24 80 10 32 37 2 18 5 89 113 13 40 42 78 207 73 72 56 12 55 93 31 82 64 20 28 39 112 51

Private Support and Faculty Quality

Annual Giving 1999 — National Rank

45 110 49 74 NR 70 127 4 NR 121 90 31 64 155 75 65 231 207 287 108 851 NR 50 187 16 73 83 13 34 22 183 160 32 103 78 141 757 152 239 105 26 97 249 112 161 113 39 46 58 213 76

Faculty Awards

National Academy Membership

1999 — Control Rank

22 52 25 36 NR 36 57 4 NR 55 48 15 33 72 37 32 110 102 127 57 305 NR 25 96 4 38 45 3 16 9 93 86 17 53 40 77 261 82 126 55 11 50 120 59 87 60 18 23 30 103 39

2000 — National Academy Members

2000 — National Rank

2000 — Control Rank

1999 — National Rank

1999 — Control Rank

17 11 19 43 2 26 1 239 1 1 1 15 0 6 5 3 0 5 12 9 0 0 27 0 190 25 21 61 91 64 32 10 60 2 24 7 3 1 1 10 17 8 5 7 0 5 53 18 7 0 4

46 58 42 21 112 31 132 2 132 132 132 50 187 78 83 100 187 83 55 66 187 187 30 187 4 32 40 16 7 15 27 62 17 112 33 72 100 132 132 62 46 71 83 72 187 83 19 44 72 187 96

25 27 21 12 43 14 50 2 83 50 83 28 112 33 34 40 112 50 31 37 112 112 13 112 1 15 21 6 2 5 12 33 11 70 16 41 61 83 50 33 25 40 50 41 112 50 8 23 41 112 58

37 57 43 21 100 33 122 2 122 122 122 51 180 81 92 122 180 81 51 64 180 180 29 180 4 32 37 14 7 16 28 59 17 112 29 79 100 180 122 59 48 64 81 69 180 81 18 49 81 180 92

18 26 21 12 40 16 47 2 76 47 76 28 108 34 37 47 108 48 28 36 108 108 13 108 1 15 18 5 2 6 12 33 11 68 13 46 61 108 47 33 26 36 48 38 108 48 7 27 48 108 56

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

2000 — Faculty Awards

19 8 8 10 0 19 0 54 0 7 5 11 5 2 13 9 2 16 17 15 0 1 18 0 59 19 12 51 29 31 9 7 35 8 15 9 3 8 0 9 27 11 4 6 2 16 33 11 14 5 14

2000 — National Rank

2000 — Control Rank

29 81 81 69 517 29 517 3 517 85 111 61 111 199 52 73 199 39 38 42 517 283 36 517 2 29 58 4 18 14 73 85 8 81 42 73 158 81 517 73 23 61 131 92 199 39 10 61 46 111 46

Page 59

14 30 30 27 212 14 212 2 306 32 74 36 74 71 21 29 129 22 21 25 306 183 20 306 1 14 34 2 8 6 45 54 5 52 25 45 104 52 212 45 11 36 88 60 129 22 4 36 29 74 29

1999 — National Rank

31 122 65 30 504 33 122 2 504 88 100 41 100 187 56 65 276 50 36 47 504 276 59 504 5 36 88 3 15 12 47 73 8 56 19 59 187 100 276 100 27 88 73 73 122 41 18 33 122 148 51

1999 — Control Rank

16 41 26 15 219 18 41 2 286 33 65 24 65 69 24 26 163 29 21 27 286 163 34 286 2 21 56 1 6 5 27 45 5 33 9 34 119 65 114 65 14 56 45 45 82 24 8 18 82 98 30

Private Support and Faculty Quality Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically continued Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Private

University of Maryland — Baltimore University of Maryland — College Park University of Massachusetts — Amherst University of Massachusetts Medical Sch — Worcester University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey University of Miami University of Michigan — Ann Arbor University of Minnesota — Twin Cities University of Missouri — Columbia University of Nebraska — Lincoln University of Nevada — Reno University of New Hampshire — Durham University of New Mexico — Albuquerque University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill University of Notre Dame University of Oklahoma — Norman University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh University of Puerto Rico — Mayaguez University of Rhode Island — Kingston University of Rochester University of South Carolina — Columbia University of South Florida University of Southern California University of Tennessee — Knoxville University of Tennessee Health Science Center University of Texas — Austin University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas University of Utah University of Vermont University of Virginia University of Washington — Seattle University of Wisconsin — Madison US Naval Postgraduate School Utah State University Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Wake Forest University Washington State University — Pullman Washington University Wayne State University West Virginia University Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Yale University Yeshiva University

Page 60

Annual Giving

Endowment Assets 2000 — Endowment Assets x $1000

149,560 319,061 65,247 41,521 140,341 465,212 3,329,637 1,809,305 379,095 590,875 128,789 148,034 202,558 1,105,254 3,089,007 417,909 131,971 251,359 3,200,812 1,018,015 NR 64,881 1,278,774 267,740 237,027 2,152,589 258,000 167,000 1,611,050 96,519 293,090 300,480 342,602 713,253 317,268 189,153 1,738,984 911,804 1,080,363 NR 76,878 2,314,935 225,674 368,197 969,618 437,093 4,234,599 158,841 299,825 278,829 10,084,900 775,262

2000 — National Rank

2000 — Control Rank

245 135 389 473 259 92 14 23 117 78 267 249 196 38 16 101 264 165 15 44

86 42 129 157 90 68 2 4 37 22 92 87 72 11 14 29 91 59 13 13

391 34 160 176 21 164 221 25 322 149 144 128 68 136 204 24 53 39

130 25 55 65 18 58 81 6 110 50 47 41 19 43 75 5 16 12

365 19 180 121 46 97 8 231 145 156 2 63

122 17 68 40 33 27 8 83 48 102 2 45

1999 — National Rank

210 125 372 452 263 89 15 23 110 88 266 240 183 38 16 115 229 171 10 48 NR 375 30 149 176 21 219 251 26 344 151 146 128 71 137 194 25 54 40 NR 367 17 178 114 47 91 7 227 148 161 2 61

1999 — Control Rank

75 39 124 147 91 64 2 4 32 25 92 87 68 11 14 35 82 59 9 14 NR 126 23 50 62 18 78 89 6 117 51 48 40 21 44 70 5 16 12 NR 123 15 64 34 34 26 7 81 49 106 2 44

2000 — Annual Giving x $1000

29,419 56,119 21,117 13,159 22,400 100,563 221,381 193,950 39,212 47,615 21,604 11,790 30,879 164,640 140,679 51,244 26,398 48,584 288,152 82,030 NR 12,758 64,091 52,357 40,809 253,288 48,004 15,500 201,637 23,880 26,499 63,526 34,969 115,033 144,016 24,280 195,284 225,575 280,182 NR 23,729 94,181 27,567 55,610 42,502 45,808 127,219 40,000 52,855 15,588 358,103 41,299

2000 — National Rank

2000 — Control Rank

143 83 192 270 178 43 15 20 113 95 189 292 139 25 28 88 158 92 8 56

76 44 101 126 96 21 4 8 63 53 100 136 74 11 15 49 85 50 8 30

274 71 86 106 11 94 241 18 169 157 72 124 35 27 167 19 14 9

128 34 47 58 9 52 115 6 90 84 38 71 17 13 88 7 3 1

170 45 150 84 103 96 30 109 85 237 4 105

91 22 81 45 46 54 16 60 46 125 4 48

Private Support and Faculty Quality

Annual Giving

Faculty Awards

National Academy Membership

1999 — National Rank

1999 — Control Rank

2000 — National Academy Members

163 81 185 578 237 42 17 18 104 20 130 228 144 23 36 89 184 79 6 57 NR 240 84 80 179 10 96 235 27 148 202 63 149 59 30 159 28 11 7 NR 165 15 133 56 86 100 35 117 131 537 9 99

89 43 95 206 113 22 5 6 54 7 72 108 78 10 20 47 94 41 6 29 NR 114 39 42 92 9 49 112 12 80 101 32 81 31 14 85 13 2 1 NR 90 12 74 28 41 51 19 64 73 342 8 49

9 18 10 2 2 1 60 36 5 2 2 0 4 33 2 3 2 5 87 17 0 1 20 1 3 34 1 0 52 5 1 1 2 22 19 3 22 71 68 1 0 11 1 11 2 7 35 3 0 5 101 9

2000 — National Rank

66 44 62 112 112 132 17 23 83 112 112 187 96 26 112 100 112 83 8 46 187 132 41 132 100 25 132 187 20 83 132 132 112 35 42 100 35 12 13 132 187 58 132 58 112 72 24 100 187 83 5 66

2000 — Control Rank

1999 — National Rank

1999 — Control Rank

2000 — Faculty Awards

2000 — National Rank

37 23 33 70 70 50 7 10 50 70 70 112 58 11 43 61 70 50 6 25 112 83 20 83 61 15 83 112 9 50 83 83 70 17 22 61 17 3 4 83 112 27 83 32 43 41 14 61 112 34 4 30

79 41 55 180 112 122 19 23 81 112 112 180 92 25 112 92 112 81 8 51 180 122 41 122 100 23 122 180 20 69 122 122 122 37 46 122 37 11 13 122 180 59 180 59 100 69 26 112 180 81 5 64

46 22 31 108 68 47 8 10 48 68 68 108 56 11 45 56 68 48 6 28 108 76 20 76 61 14 76 108 9 38 76 76 76 18 25 76 18 3 4 76 108 27 108 33 40 38 15 68 108 34 4 29

5 12 13 9 6 3 32 31 9 5 4 6 6 29 13 2 4 5 42 11 0 3 12 10 9 19 6 1 28 4 7 2 1 19 19 7 25 37 25 0 0 18 4 7 2 9 30 6 2 0 28 5

111 58 52 73 92 158 12 14 73 111 131 92 92 18 52 199 131 111 5 61 517 158 58 69 73 29 92 283 20 131 85 199 283 29 29 85 25 7 25 517 517 36 131 85 199 73 17 92 199 517 20 111

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

2000 — Control Rank

Page 61

74 34 32 45 60 55 5 6 45 74 88 60 60 8 21 129 88 74 3 36 306 104 25 43 45 16 60 183 10 88 54 129 183 14 14 54 12 3 12 306 306 17 88 54 71 45 10 60 129 212 11 38

1999 — National Rank

1999 — Control Rank

59 59 65 81 100 81 7 19 51 81 148 122 88 24 56 65 148 59 6 36 276 187 88 100 79 45 276 504 24 100 81 276 276 19 41 100 35 9 15 504 504 36 73 100 122 100 17 59 100 276 3 79

34 34 40 51 65 31 3 9 30 51 98 82 56 12 24 40 98 34 4 21 163 119 33 65 50 19 163 286 12 65 51 163 163 9 24 65 20 4 6 286 286 16 45 65 41 65 10 34 65 114 3 30

Advanced Training and Undergraduate Quality Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private

Arizona State University — Tempe Auburn University — Auburn Baylor College of Medicine Boston University Brandeis University Brown University California Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University Case Western Reserve University Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science Clemson University Colorado State University Columbia University Cornell University Dartmouth College Duke University Emory University Florida A&M University Florida State University George Washington University Georgetown University Georgia Institute of Technology Harvard University Howard University Indiana University — Bloomington Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis Iowa State University Johns Hopkins University Kansas State University Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology Medical College of Wisconsin Medical University of South Carolina Michigan State University Mississippi State University Montana State University — Bozeman Mount Sinai School of Medicine New Jersey Institute of Technology New Mexico State University — Las Cruces New York University North Carolina State University Northeastern University Northwestern University Ohio State University — Columbus Oklahoma State University — Stillwater Oregon Health Sciences University Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University — Hershey Medical Ctr Pennsylvania State University — University Park Princeton University

Page 62

Postdoc Appointees

Doctorates Awarded 2000 — Doctorates

286 186 61 274 111 149 127 152 202 0 116 180 461 468 38 230 160 8 263 236 107 230 602 121 409 43 238 351 132 275 33 475 11 25 444 128 32 27 52 76 402 316 76 321 620 185 38 158 22 513 279

2000 — National Rank

42 75 179 49 123 94 104 92 69 547 116 79 20 18 228 63 86 401 51 61 127 63 8 111 25 219 59 32 99 47 244 17 369 285 22 103 252 274 196 156 27 37 156 35 5 76 228 88 299 13 45

2000 — Control Rank

29 53 65 15 44 30 33 29 19 308 76 56 7 6 91 17 28 200 36 16 46 47 1 39 17 133 44 11 67 33 141 5 179 158 15 71 146 120 121 99 9 24 58 13 5 54 138 60 163 10 14

1998 — National Rank

48 79 208 42 130 83 77 74 80 542 124 69 20 16 219 63 97 516 43 78 149 56 2 130 33 237 45 34 90 59 277 14 319 319 22 120 202 542 247 130 23 39 143 29 8 82 271 80 334 11 56

1998 — Control Rank

34 55 79 14 46 26 23 22 25 307 83 49 7 6 84 17 28 227 29 24 54 42 1 46 21 143 31 13 63 43 155 4 148 172 15 81 125 307 147 85 8 26 52 10 7 57 154 56 176 9 15

1999 — Postdocs

1999 — National Rank

75 33 394 183 100 187 497 144 349 0 17 255 352 607 115 571 200 0 99 50 70 0 3291 33 143 255 179 1239 88 72 74 498 94 185 258 24 74

112 158 25 70 99 67 18 79 28 264 192 48 27 11 90 13 66 264 101 137 118 264 1 158 80 48 71 3 106 116 113 17 104 69 47 177 113

0 18 293 203 26 249 264 35 84 85 51 246 315

264 190 36 64 171 50 44 154 109 108 136 52 33

A d v a n c e d Tr a i n i n g a n d U n d e r g r a d u a t e Q u a l i t y

Postdoctoral Appointees 1999 — Control Rank

National Merit and Achievement Scholars

SAT Scores

1998 — National Rank

1998 — Control Rank

75 108 13 28 34 27 10 29 15 88 127 27 14 5 32 7 26 177 67 43 38 177 1 51 51 27 43 3 69 79 76 9 37 42 26 117 76

103 154 21 99 107 78 18 80 32 287 185 53 26 14 111 10 67 287 93 146 106 287 1 141 71 57 70 4 111 118 110 20 287 77 56 170 115

69 104 11 33 36 28 9 29 17 95 128 30 13 7 37 5 26 193 62 46 35 193 1 44 44 34 43 3 75 81 74 10 95 50 33 117 78

177 126 19 39 56 22 23 106 72 71 94 29 17

212 168 30 81 152 47 60 136 108 123 146 62 31

147 115 15 52 49 22 36 93 72 86 101 38 16

1999 — Median SAT

1105 1085 NA 1270 1320 1390 1515 1365 1330 NA 1135 1130 1370 1365 1440 1400 1340 950 1150 1235 1350 1320 1495 1105 1095 945 1210 1385 1070 1090 NA 1475 NA NA 1110 1070 1105 NA 1130 970 1325 1175 1125 1370 1140 1130 NA 1085 NA 1205 1450

1999 — National Rank

1999 — Control Rank

405 485

95 120

77 48 16 1 24 44

70 48 16 1 24 44

302 317 22 24 8 13 36 1074 254 117 31 48 2 405 444 1090 140 18 520 460

65 69 22 24 8 13 36 365 53 99 31 1 2 311 105 371 21 18 135 111

4

4

377 520 405

86 135 95

317 984 47 198 332 22 283 317

69 323 47 42 258 22 60 69

485

120

146 7

23 7

1998 — National Rank

1998 — Control Rank

2000 — National Merits

2000 — National Rank

2000 — Control Rank

1999 — National Rank

1999 — Control Rank

389 280 NA 85 48 15 1 22 26 NA 303 361 22 26 8 15 32

91 56 NA 73 47 15 1 22 26 NA 61 81 22 26 8 15 32

18 65

8 30

39 74 29 31 105 33

24 40 17 18 56 20

280 124 26 52 2 490 317 1015 137 19 444 444 NA 3 NA NA 372 372 444 NA 317 891 48 238 425 22 317 238 NA 476 NA 144 4

56 104 26 2 2 371 67 329 22 19 103 103 NA 3 NA NA 84 84 103 NA 67 276 47 50 325 22 67 50 NA 115 NA 25 4

119 38 NA 60 32 76 71 19 68 NA 29 14 54 53 71 107 61 62 54 16 39 115 444 46 10 0 125 65 14 34 NA 173 NA NA 61 35 4 NA 0 0 149 21 2 92 116 18 NA 6 NA 26 122

81 129 44 47 31 23 37 35 44 118 64 21 1 54 157 412 16 34 129 71

40 58 27 28 18 12 23 14 18 62 35 11 1 32 68 163 7 21 58 33

7

4

37 68 222

15 31 88

412 412 13 99 261 25 19 112

163 163 9 48 156 14 9 54

186

76

86 17

42 10

17 100 NA 34 84 34 42 77 31 NA 66 132 50 50 37 27 39 53 21 100 82 21 1 59 84 409 19 30 94 62 NA 9 NA NA 42 64 238 NA 409 256 13 119 216 16 20 90 NA 157 NA 77 14

6 49 NA 19 44 19 26 40 18 NA 31 62 28 28 22 14 24 23 9 52 42 9 1 34 41 154 7 17 46 28 NA 5 NA NA 17 30 96 NA 154 101 8 55 128 11 8 43 NA 69 NA 38 9

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 63

Advanced Training and Undergraduate Quality Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically continued Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public

Purdue University — West Lafayette Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rice University Rockefeller University Rush University Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick Saint Louis University — St. Louis Stanford University State Univ. of New York Downstate Medical Center Syracuse University Temple University Texas A&M University Texas Tech University Thomas Jefferson University Tufts University Tulane University University at Albany University at Buffalo University at Stony Brook University of Alabama — Birmingham University of Alabama — Huntsville University of Alaska — Fairbanks University of Arizona University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences University of California — Berkeley University of California — Davis University of California — Irvine University of California — Los Angeles University of California — San Diego University of California — San Francisco University of California — Santa Barbara University of California — Santa Cruz University of Chicago University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati University of Colorado — Boulder University of Colorado Health Sciences Center University of Connecticut — Health Center University of Connecticut — Storrs University of Dayton University of Delaware University of Florida University of Georgia University of Hawaii — Manoa University of Houston — University Park University of Idaho University of Illinois — Chicago University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign University of Iowa University of Kansas — Lawrence University of Kansas Medical Center University of Kentucky

Page 64

Postdoc Appointees

Doctorates Awarded 2000 — Doctorates

468 93 115 19 44 371 123 589 14 147 263 490 141 16 100 126 155 303 244 125 29 20 405 22 756 357 202 606 294 77 232 90 391 238 266 44 0 275 31 164 516 352 153 204 79 201 597 317 246 12 249

2000 — National Rank

2000 — Control Rank

1998 — National Rank

1998 — Control Rank

18 135 118 312 216 29 108 10 343 95 51 14 97 334 131 105 90 40 58 107 263 307 26 299 1 30 69 6 41 155 62 137 28 59 50 216

13 51 42 143 86 19 36 2 180 31 36 11 65 157 48 34 62 27 43 72 152 166 18 163 1 20 51 6 28 98 46 86 10 44 35 131

17 109 118 285 192 26 103 10 346 87 49 13 89 307 146 107 85 47 54 98 221 168 25 346 4 36 76 9 40 135 55 137 31 53 41 179

11 34 39 127 70 17 30 2 181 27 35 10 62 141 53 33 59 33 40 70 136 107 16 181 3 23 54 8 27 87 41 89 11 39 28 115

47 256 84 12 31 91 68 150 71 9 36 56 360 55

33 108 58 9 21 63 50 95 52 8 23 41 185 40

61 271 98 21 30 91 72 163 66 6 38 51 359 64

45 118 70 14 20 64 51 103 48 5 25 37 185 47

1999 — Postdocs

1999 — National Rank

228 46 118 275 25 151 38 1242 47 37 113 267 88 247 243 64 15 246 400 280 0 7 451 42 933 204 324 851 968 1117 158 120 348 224 274 285 139 59 2 129 344 179 55 64 31 264 246 279 130 50 186

A d v a n c e d Tr a i n i n g a n d U n d e r g r a d u a t e Q u a l i t y

58 141 89 40 173 78 147 2 140 149 91 43 106 51 56 122 199 52 23 38 264 226 19 145 7 63 32 9 6 4 76 88 29 59 41 37 83 126 248 87 30 71 132 122 162 44 52 39 86 137 68

Postdoctoral Appointees 1999 — Control Rank

34 44 31 20 58 50 45 2 97 46 59 22 69 23 24 40 132 29 12 19 177 151 9 101 4 38 16 5 3 1 48 58 16 35 21 18 54 85 82 57 14 43 90 83 110 23 29 20 56 95 41

National Merit and Achievement Scholars

SAT Scores

1998 — National Rank

1998 — Control Rank

58 124 87 59 150 72 135 3 146 152 90 37 104 45 48 124 206 55 28 34 287 203 17 132 7 38 35 9 5 2 74 65 43 60 40 29 83 185 263 89 33 67 91 120 157 51 49 45 86 122 62

35 38 30 24 47 45 43 2 101 49 59 20 70 21 23 38 142 32 14 17 193 139 9 92 4 21 18 5 2 1 47 41 20 36 22 15 54 128 85 58 16 42 60 83 107 28 26 25 57 85 38

1999 — Median SAT

1100 1275 1415 NA NA 1205 1160 1455 NA 1200 1040 1180 1075 NA 1340 1290 1110 1110 1120 1010 1150 1040 1100 NA 1315 1170 1145 1285 1180 NA 1185 1160 1390 1050 1160 NA NA 1130 1150 1140 1265 1195 1090 1025 1105 1070 1250 1190 1110 NA 1125

1999 — National Rank

1999 — Control Rank

421 73 11

99 67 11

146 224 6

23 178 6

153 656 185 503

127 180 39 129

36 68 377 377 351 799 254 656 421

36 63 86 86 78 241 53 180 99

52 204 267 70 185

3 43 57 6 39

182 224 16 612 224

37 47 16 162 47

317 254 283 84 164 460 744 405 520 98 172 377

69 202 60 10 30 111 222 95 135 13 34 86

332

75

1998 — National Rank

1998 — Control Rank

409 81 10 NA NA 144 222 7 NA 179 768 206 556 NA 36 116 327 344 372 784 280

94 70 10 NA NA 25 178 7 NA 144 221 42 138 NA 35 100 72 76 84 228 56

409 NA 33 222 327 74 183 NA 213 303 26 607 238 NA NA 344 267 303 100 171 409 685 389 607 120 197 372 NA 327

94 NA 1 45 72 8 38 NA 43 61 26 153 50 NA NA 76 214 61 14 34 94 186 91 153 19 40 84 NA 72

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

2000 — Control Rank

2000 — National Merits

2000 — National Rank

54 17 168 NA NA 21 14 244 NA 3 2 146 19 NA 36 43 0 2 1 3 0 3 42 NA 249 23 2 87 53 NA 13 8 160 6 11 NA NA 0 15 14 194 51 1 24 13 6 42 32 116 NA 60

44 114 9

18 59 6

99 129 4

48 72 2

237 261 14 105

143 106 5 50

67 59 412 261 294 237 412 237 60

37 33 163 106 116 95 163 95 27

3 95 261 26 47

2 47 106 12 20

137 166 11 186 147

61 72 8 76 65

412 122 129 6 51 294 91 137 186 60 74 19

163 66 58 3 22 116 44 61 76 27 35 9

39

16

Page 65

1999 — National Rank

40 124 7 NA NA 97 106 2 NA 409 409 8 137 NA 52 41 409 287 409 157 409 216 48 NA 4 90 124 25 46 NA 196 238 11 157 216 NA NA 196 144 137 5 42 409 112 196 238 68 73 26 NA 33

1999 — Control Rank

16 67 4 NA NA 48 56 2 NA 256 154 4 64 NA 30 25 154 110 154 69 154 89 21 NA 2 43 58 12 19 NA 82 96 6 69 89 NA NA 82 78 64 3 17 154 53 82 96 32 37 13 NA 15

Advanced Training and Undergraduate Quality Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically continued Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Private

University of Maryland — Baltimore University of Maryland — College Park University of Massachusetts — Amherst University of Massachusetts Medical Sch — Worcester University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey University of Miami University of Michigan — Ann Arbor University of Minnesota — Twin Cities University of Missouri — Columbia University of Nebraska — Lincoln University of Nevada — Reno University of New Hampshire — Durham University of New Mexico — Albuquerque University of North Carolina - — Chapel Hill University of Notre Dame University of Oklahoma — Norman University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh University of Puerto Rico — Mayaguez University of Rhode Island — Kingston University of Rochester University of South Carolina — Columbia University of South Florida University of Southern California University of Tennessee — Knoxville University of Tennessee Health Science Center University of Texas — Austin University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas University of Utah University of Vermont University of Virginia University of Washington — Seattle University of Wisconsin — Madison US Naval Postgraduate School Utah State University Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Wake Forest University Washington State University — Pullman Washington University Wayne State University West Virginia University Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Yale University Yeshiva University

Page 66

Postdoc Appointees

Doctorates Awarded 2000 — Doctorates

73 461 276 20 69 176 629 604 256 251 84 49 184 425 147 167 17 138 427 316 4 84 211 246 131 481 286 29 659 87 24 NA 35 55 215 58 343 486 729 NR 71 190 112 309 28 118 199 222 132 NA 334 126

2000 — National Rank

2000 — Control Rank

1998 — National Rank

1998 — Control Rank

161 20 46 307 168 80 4 7 53 54 144 207 77 24 95 83 324 98 23 37 459 144 67 56 102 16 42 263 3 141 292

102 14 32 166 107 24 4 7 38 39 92 126 55 16 31 57 175 66 8 24 215 92 18 41 70 4 29 152 3 89 161

163 19 46 285 150 102 7 5 52 50 161 158 75 27 113 88 319 93 24 28 470 163 67 62 94 15 60 302 1 171 280

103 13 32 159 96 29 6 4 38 36 102 100 53 18 36 61 172 66 9 19 213 103 19 46 67 5 44 165 1 110 157

241 192 66 182 33 15 2

140 119 49 116 22 12 2

257 173 72 182 44 18 3

150 112 51 118 30 12 2

165 74 122 39 270 115 72 65 99

105 22 79 26 117 75 20 48 67

137 68 115 35 250 84 70 71 95

89 20 78 22 103 58 21 50 68

34 105

12 34

32 125

12 42

1999 — Postdocs

1999 — National Rank

140 220 143 214 112 138 728 518 152 110 0 14 92 568 96 68 57 106 917 432

82 60 80 61 92 84 10 16 77 93 264 202 105 14 102 119 128 97 8 21

39 268 82 62 558 107 56 246 170 102 392 263 229 295 74 339 1057 440 0 25 406 203 108 96 163 582 135 7 27 206 400

146 42 111 125 15 96 130 52 74 98 26 46 57 35 113 31 5 20 264 173 22 64 94 102 75 12 85 226 168 62 23

A d v a n c e d Tr a i n i n g a n d U n d e r g r a d u a t e Q u a l i t y

Postdoctoral Appointees 1998 — National Rank

1998 — Control Rank

1999 — Median SAT

53 36 51 37 60 30 6 8 49 61 177 135 68 7 35 81 86 64 4 11

83 53 85 64 101 69 11 15 82 95 287 206 108 13 102 113 105 95 8 25

54 30 56 40 68 27 6 8 53 63 193 142 72 7 34 76 71 63 4 13

102 21 74 84 8 63 88 29 46 65 13 25 33 17 76 15 2 10 177 116 11 39 62 35 47 6 55 151 54 25 12

175 40 116 128 16 100 136 50 75 91 23 42 22 36 113 43 6 19 287 185 24 52 98 88 79 12 73 211 193 66 27

121 19 79 88 8 67 93 27 48 60 12 23 11 19 76 24 3 10 193 128 12 29 66 31 51 6 46 146 62 25 14

NA 1240 1135 NA NA 1160 1270 1185 1200 1150 1040 1115 1070 1245 1345 1110 NA 1115 1400 1145 NR 1090 1320 1100 1084 1265 1100 NA 1195 NA NA NA NA NA 1130 1130 1310 1160 1195 NA 1055 1310 1020 1165 1300 1055 1355 970 1020 NA 1465 1190

1999 — Control Rank

National Merit and Achievement Scholars

SAT Scores 1999 — National Rank

1999 — Control Rank

110 302

16 65

224 77 182 153 254 656 367 520 104 35 377

178 8 37 27 53 180 81 135 15 35 86

367 13 267

81 13 57

460 48 421 496 84 421

111 48 99 126 75 99

164

30

317 317 58 224 164

69 69 4 47 30

589 58 758 216 64 589 29 984 758

152 55 226 45 59 152 29 323 226

5 172

5 139

1998 — National Rank

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

1998 — Control Rank

NA 144 344 NA NA 238 75 213 155 267 644 317 505 116 44 372 NA 409 17 303

NA 25 76 NA NA 189 9 43 29 54 170 67 125 17 43 84 NA 94 17 61

526 56 476 371 108 409 NA 155 NA NA NA NA NA 317 303 52 238 162 NA 444 43 836 222 56 607 36 1110 685 NA 6 85

129 52 115 83 93 94 NA 29 NA NA NA NA NA 67 61 2 50 32 NA 103 42 251 45 52 153 35 379 186 NA 6 73

2000 — National Merits

NA 46 0 NA NA 20 55 40 30 26 1 0 1 151 47 145 NA 13 86 9 0 0 21 44 19 170 35 NA 250 NA NA NA NA NA 29 0 53 44 44 NA 19 107 1 24 25 2 164 1 11 NA 220 2

2000 — National Rank

2000 — Control Rank

54 412

23 163

102 43 63 79 86 294 411 294 12 52 15

53 17 29 38 42 116 163 116 4 30 6

137 27 161 412 412 99 56 105 8 68

61 15 70 163 163 52 24 50 5 31

2

1

81 412 47 56 56

40 163 20 24 24

105 23 294 91 90 261 10 294 147

50 12 116 44 47 106 7 116 65

5 261

3 156

Page 67

1999 — National Rank

1999 — Control Rank

NA 48 287 NA NA 90 46 55 90 77 287 256 256 24 66 10 NA 112 29 151 409 287 94 60 119 15 71 NA 3 NA NA NA NA NA 68 409 60 55 68 NA 94 23 409 100 87 216 11 409 157 NA 6 409

NA 21 110 NA NA 48 19 24 43 38 110 101 101 11 36 5 NA 53 16 68 154 110 49 26 55 10 35 NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA 32 154 26 24 32 NA 46 13 154 49 46 89 6 154 69 NA 3 256

Change

Federal Research in Constant 1998 Dollars

Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private

Arizona State University — Tempe Auburn University — Auburn Baylor College of Medicine Boston University Brandeis University Brown University California Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University Case Western Reserve University Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science Clemson University Colorado State University Columbia University Cornell University Dartmouth College Duke University Emory University Florida A&M University Florida State University George Washington University Georgetown University Georgia Institute of Technology Harvard University Howard University Indiana University — Bloomington Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis Iowa State University Johns Hopkins University Kansas State University Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology Medical College of Wisconsin Medical University of South Carolina Michigan State University Mississippi State University Montana State University — Bozeman Mount Sinai School of Medicine New Jersey Institute of Technology New Mexico State University — Las Cruces New York University North Carolina State University Northeastern University Northwestern University Ohio State University — Columbus Oklahoma State University — Stillwater Oregon Health Sciences University Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University — Hershey Medical Ctr Pennsylvania State University — University Park Princeton University

Page 68

1999 — Federal Research x $1000

52,191 26,198 136,624 119,466 28,487 43,836 189,092 87,533 135,720 21,506 26,203 89,019 232,521 227,326 45,255 180,818 128,592 20,035 53,896 48,356 81,302 109,272 257,560 20,969 39,604 59,406 52,456 746,076 27,208 36,105 23,382 299,097 45,590 30,011 86,978 45,048 25,397 81,933 20,455 55,066 107,590 64,201 22,052 128,429 130,916 22,442 73,615 79,053 23,133 169,640 70,653

1990 — Federal Research x $1000

34,394 18,923 98,038 78,204 24,342 47,755 117,161 83,495 91,211 5,309 18,395 65,637 202,135 221,511 38,980 137,180 67,737 16,958 42,591 34,688 46,686 122,678 199,315 16,902 29,572 44,358 44,035 775,907 20,245 30,300 21,463 302,437 27,932 14,112 75,309 27,715 11,709 56,406 3,533 70,739 104,458 56,638 13,216 80,434 102,029 22,952 35,236 65,379 21,212 155,552 66,692

Net Change in Constant Dollars

17,797 7,275 38,585 41,262 4,145 (3,919) 71,931 4,038 44,509 16,197 7,809 23,382 30,386 5,815 6,275 43,639 60,856 3,077 11,305 13,668 34,615 (13,406) 58,244 4,067 10,032 15,048 8,421 (29,832) 6,964 5,805 1,919 (3,340) 17,658 15,899 11,669 17,334 13,688 25,527 16,923 (15,673) 3,132 7,563 8,836 47,995 28,887 (510) 38,379 13,674 1,921 14,088 3,962

Percent Change in Constant Dollars

52% 38% 39% 53% 17% -8% 61% 5% 49% 305% 42% 36% 15% 3% 16% 32% 90% 18% 27% 39% 74% -11% 29% 24% 34% 34% 19% -4% 34% 19% 9% -1% 63% 113% 15% 63% 117% 45% 479% -22% 3% 13% 67% 60% 28% -2% 109% 21% 9% 9% 6%

Net Change in National Rank

Net Change in Control Rank

9 6 5 11 -2 -26 12 -10 5 67 13 6 0 -3 -10 0 22 -5 -3 5 15 -18 4 -1 1 2 -9 0 6 -2 -9 -2 16 36 -3 15 30 8 94 -26 -14 -5 11 12 -1 -21 31 -3 -9 -7 -10

Change

4 5 3 5 1 -7 3 -2 3 19 12 2 -1 -3 -2 -2 8 -1 -3 3 5 -11 1 -3 2 -1 -9 0 5 -1 -10 0 5 27 -4 11 23 2 69 -20 -6 -4 3 5 -1 -20 22 -3 -10 -4 -1

Endowment Assets in Constant 1998 Dollars 2000 — Endowment Assets x $1000

207,617 229,358 1,006,032 879,418 391,673 1,363,658 1,478,881 798,444 1,493,228 2,119 227,603 100,900 4,106,205 3,309,760 2,398,232 2,565,327 4,846,474 NR 277,826 710,354 717,818 1,099,424 18,147,097 297,540 480,638 367,032 395,508 1,757,679 181,096 182,790 21,032 6,235,912 62,891 78,396 298,808 148,061 41,030 NR 39,418 50,504 992,660 301,265 499,350 3,243,608 1,247,011 160,710 237,234 256,470 94,018 752,140 8,087,370

1994 — Endowment Assets x $1000

60,925 139,301 333,300 376,952 216,163 675,589 667,263 460,732 618,938 NR 90,093 34,887 2,131,062 1,387,617 875,476 776,592 1,878,885 NR 55,718 403,185 378,367 302,953 6,889,555 146,796 208,628 187,763 118,013 823,100 104,970 66,660 21,086 1,975,110 35,146 22,220 114,210 70,229 NR NR 6,733 23,998 769,324 131,978 237,069 1,416,983 539,942 55,101 107,154 89,312 32,302 258,415 3,829,415

Net Change in Constant Dollars

Percent Change in Constant Dollars

Headcount Enrollment

Net Change in National Rank

Net Change in Control Rank

146,692 90,057 672,732 502,466 175,510 688,069 811,618 337,712 874,290

241% 65% 202% 133% 81% 102% 122% 73% 141%

76 -36 25 8 -12 -1 2 -18 5

16 -26 24 9 -5 0 2 -10 5

137,510 66,014 1,975,143 1,922,143 1,522,756 1,788,735 2,967,588

153% 189% 93% 139% 174% 230% 158%

13 49 -1 2 1 5 3

-6 3 -2 2 1 4 2

222,108 307,169 339,452 796,471 11,257,542 150,744 272,010 179,269 277,495 934,579 76,127 116,130 (54) 4,260,802 27,744 56,176 184,599 77,833

399% 76% 90% 263% 163% 103% 130% 95% 235% 114% 73% 174% 0% 216% 79% 253% 162% 111%

129 -12 -7 37 0 -11 15 -8 56 -2 -30 42 -121 2 -32 72 23 -3

40 -7 -2 6 0 -3 1 -6 16 -1 -22 8 -59 1 -11 12 4 -7

32,685 26,506 223,336 169,287 262,282 1,826,626 707,069 105,609 130,080 167,158 61,715 493,724 4,257,956

485% 110% 29% 128% 111% 129% 131% 192% 121% 187% 191% 191% 111%

66 -14 -20 11 6 -1 0 62 1 31 56 17 -1

36 -15 -11 -2 8 -1 -1 12 -10 5 4 0 -1

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Fall 1999 — Total Student Enrollment

Fall 1990 — Total Student Enrollment

44,215 22,120 1,186 28,487 4,527 7,758 1,889 8,438 9,300 211 16,982 27,036 21,167 22,089 5,344 11,811 11,294 12,082 32,878 20,346 12,498 14,074 24,214 9,108 36,201 27,587 26,110 17,801 21,543 31,639 2,799 9,972 1,279 2,383 43,038 16,076 11,658 495 8,258 15,449 37,132 28,011 23,556 17,041 48,003 21,014 1,849 16,041 593 40,658 6,440

42,936 21,537 999 27,996 3,791 7,577 1,861 7,225 8,213 99 15,714 26,828 18,242 22,615 4,859 11,293 9,390 8,344 28,170 19,103 11,525 12,241 22,851 11,101 35,451 27,517 25,737 13,363 21,137 26,112 2,538 9,628 1,005 1,781 44,307 14,391 10,392 504 7,667 14,812 32,813 27,199 30,510 17,041 54,087 19,827 1,356 16,361 494 38,864 6,483

Page 69

Net Change in Enrollment

1,279 583 187 491 736 181 28 1,213 1,087 112 1,268 208 2,925 (526) 485 518 1,904 3,738 4,708 1,243 973 1,833 1,363 (1,993) 750 70 373 4,438 406 5,527 261 344 274 602 (1,269) 1,685 1,266 (9) 591 637 4,319 812 (6,954) (6,084) 1,187 493 (320) 99 1,794 (43)

Percent Change in Enrollment

3% 3% 19% 2% 19% 2% 2% 17% 13% 113% 8% 1% 16% -2% 10% 5% 20% 45% 17% 7% 8% 15% 6% -18% 2% 0% 1% 33% 2% 21% 10% 4% 27% 34% -3% 12% 12% -2% 8% 4% 13% 3% -23% 0% -11% 6% 36% -2% 20% 5% -1%

Change

Federal Research in Constant 1998 Dollars

Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically continued Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public

Purdue University — West Lafayette Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rice University Rockefeller University Rush University Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick Saint Louis University — St. Louis Stanford University State Univ. of New York Downstate Medical Center Syracuse University Temple University Texas A&M University Texas Tech University Thomas Jefferson University Tufts University Tulane University University at Albany University at Buffalo University at Stony Brook University of Alabama — Birmingham University of Alabama — Huntsville University of Alaska — Fairbanks University of Arizona University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences University of California — Berkeley University of California — Davis University of California — Irvine University of California — Los Angeles University of California — San Diego University of California — San Francisco University of California — Santa Barbara University of California — Santa Cruz University of Chicago University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati University of Colorado — Boulder University of Colorado Health Sciences Center University of Connecticut — Health Center University of Connecticut — Storrs University of Dayton University of Delaware University of Florida University of Georgia University of Hawaii — Manoa University of Houston — University Park University of Idaho University of Illinois — Chicago University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign University of Iowa University of Kansas — Lawrence University of Kansas Medical Center University of Kentucky

Page 70

1999 — Federal Research x $1000

92,664 22,078 33,899 43,579 30,129 65,200 22,968 342,691 20,384 29,094 28,788 144,408 19,598 54,576 61,595 49,164 44,772 82,771 90,950 159,969 24,366 33,545 172,462 25,553 184,950 120,505 73,104 243,985 282,721 225,766 71,672 24,286 131,404 97,135 136,477 97,831 30,627 23,104 29,777 33,527 118,407 54,297 90,447 19,793 23,491 83,658 179,860 118,738 32,121 23,330 64,079

1990 — Federal Research x $1000

83,384 29,503 25,866 47,585 7,868 47,174 18,246 330,904 18,851 24,478 33,843 120,297 12,093 29,040 49,528 36,646 18,752 86,504 72,321 96,348 27,623 41,257 120,192 8,607 170,376 100,148 67,898 212,706 236,135 226,695 61,924 17,921 124,599 58,164 90,333 60,223 32,056 24,182 37,568 22,750 83,578 56,738 55,187 22,733 17,866 56,873 151,557 102,246 19,749 14,899 38,303

Net Change in Constant Dollars

9,280 (7,426) 8,032 (4,007) 22,261 18,026 4,722 11,787 1,532 4,616 (5,055) 24,111 7,505 25,536 12,067 12,518 26,020 (3,733) 18,629 63,621 (3,257) (7,712) 52,270 16,946 14,574 20,357 5,206 31,280 46,586 (929) 9,748 6,365 6,805 38,971 46,144 37,608 (1,428) (1,078) (7,791) 10,777 34,829 (2,441) 35,260 (2,940) 5,626 26,786 28,303 16,492 12,372 8,431 25,776

Percent Change in Constant Dollars

11% -25% 31% -8% 283% 38% 26% 4% 8% 19% -15% 20% 62% 88% 24% 34% 139% -4% 26% 66% -12% -19% 43% 197% 9% 20% 8% 15% 20% 0% 16% 36% 5% 67% 51% 62% -4% -4% -21% 47% 42% -4% 64% -13% 31% 47% 19% 16% 63% 57% 67%

Net Change in National Rank

Net Change in Control Rank

-5 -38 7 -26 75 4 0 -1 -14 -1 -21 -2 6 26 -2 2 38 -19 2 10 -19 -29 3 57 -4 -4 -9 1 -1 -5 -6 9 -9 15 7 14 -13 -18 -29 11 3 -17 17 -27 8 8 -3 -8 18 13 14

Change

-4 -8 2 -7 21 1 1 0 -9 1 -16 -3 5 7 0 3 30 -13 0 6 -16 -22 2 42 -1 -1 -7 2 -1 -1 -6 7 -2 11 3 10 -11 -19 -6 6 2 -12 12 -22 6 6 0 -4 13 9 8

Endowment Assets in Constant 1998 Dollars 2000 — Endowment Assets x $1000

1,253,803 702,964 3,247,677 1,321,429 334,749 385,449 891,695 8,329,444 36,315 794,716 150,962 3,786,968 282,551 385,200 504,150 612,805 9,955 430,771 36,734 220,277 19,699 93,540 274,798 61,708 2,088,430 380,718 123,975 1,393,818 281,899 878,504 82,689 82,129 3,687,003 928,242 230,118 115,059 51,853 120,989 286,297 877,795 656,159 374,050 166,585 376,164 104,213 114,604 564,201 408,465 659,041 164,760 356,430

1994 — Endowment Assets x $1000

555,788 310,620 1,420,440 634,035 238,382 195,129 316,835 3,056,110 17,723 264,986 94,392 2,236,040 107,696 238,115 241,418 316,635 3,019 208,027 11,995 105,702 8,570 66,230 79,536 NR 731,226 129,040 43,013 451,639 86,027 258,080 21,507 21,507 1,359,842 426,338 83,107 41,554 13,574 31,675 102,449 497,093 315,142 158,804 76,541 199,192 56,101 44,527 219,208 185,423 295,847 73,961 121,738

Net Change in Constant Dollars

Percent Change in Constant Dollars

Headcount Enrollment

Net Change in National Rank

Net Change in Control Rank

698,015 392,344 1,827,237 687,393 96,368 190,320 574,860 5,273,335 18,592 529,730 56,570 1,550,928 174,855 147,085 262,732 296,170 6,936 222,744 24,738 114,575 11,129 27,310 195,261

126% 126% 129% 108% 40% 98% 181% 173% 105% 200% 60% 69% 162% 62% 109% 94% 230% 107% 206% 108% 130% 41% 245%

0 6 -1 0 -37 -2 20 1 -30 18 -49 -4 19 -25 4 -6 -62 6 9 -7 -49 -70 59

-1 9 -1 1 -18 -3 20 1 -17 18 -27 0 1 -10 6 1 -20 0 2 -14 -17 -25 15

1,357,204 251,678 80,961 942,179 195,872 620,425 61,182 60,623 2,327,162 501,904 147,011 73,506 38,279 89,315 183,848 380,702 341,017 215,246 90,043 176,972 48,112 70,077 344,993 223,043 363,194 90,798 234,693

186% 195% 188% 209% 228% 240% 284% 282% 171% 118% 177% 177% 282% 282% 179% 77% 108% 136% 118% 89% 86% 157% 157% 120% 123% 123% 193%

5 42 53 15 51 28 92 89 4 3 34 42 60 102 29 -17 1 10 2 -9 -25 32 13 9 5 6 38

2 11 10 3 13 4 20 19 4 -2 5 7 23 19 23 -8 -6 2 -8 -6 -12 4 0 3 -3 -6 6

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Fall 1999 — Total Student Enrollment

Fall 1990 — Total Student Enrollment

39,471 7,650 4,274 142 1,299 35,308 14,062 18,083 1,516 18,535 28,124 43,817 24,249 2,270 9,269 11,426 16,901 24,256 19,139 15,098 6,874 6,768 34,326 1,861 31,347 25,092 19,277 36,351 19,894 3,491 20,056 11,302 12,016 27,467 28,851 2,452 498 18,721 10,223 21,206 43,382 30,912 17,612 32,651 11,305 24,610 38,851 28,846 25,406 2,432 23,060

37,588 6,692 4,266 128 1,144 33,016 12,891 14,724 1,642 21,900 29,714 41,171 25,363 2,364 7,895 11,019 17,400 27,638 17,624 15,356 8,139 7,592 35,729 1,408 30,634 23,890 16,808 36,420 17,790 3,812 18,385 10,054 10,867 31,013 28,600 1,805 483 25,497 11,493 20,818 35,477 28,395 18,799 33,115 10,536 24,959 38,163 28,785 26,434 2,473 22,538

Page 71

Net Change in Enrollment

1,883 958 8 14 155 2,292 1,171 3,359 (126) (3,365) (1,590) 2,646 (1,114) (94) 1,374 407 (499) (3,382) 1,515 (258) (1,265) (824) (1,403) 453 713 1,202 2,469 (69) 2,104 (321) 1,671 1,248 1,149 (3,546) 251 647 15 (6,776) (1,270) 388 7,905 2,517 (1,187) (464) 769 (349) 688 61 (1,028) (41) 522

Percent Change in Enrollment

5% 14% 0% 11% 14% 7% 9% 23% -8% -15% -5% 6% -4% -4% 17% 4% -3% -12% 9% -2% -16% -11% -4% 32% 2% 5% 15% 0% 12% -8% 9% 12% 11% -11% 1% 36% 3% -27% -11% 2% 22% 9% -6% -1% 7% -1% 2% 0% -4% -2% 2%

Change

Federal Research in Constant 1998 Dollars

Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically continued Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Private

University of Maryland — Baltimore University of Maryland — College Park University of Massachusetts — Amherst University of Massachusetts Medical Sch — Worcester University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey University of Miami University of Michigan — Ann Arbor University of Minnesota — Twin Cities University of Missouri — Columbia University of Nebraska — Lincoln University of Nevada — Reno University of New Hampshire — Durham University of New Mexico — Albuquerque University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill University of Notre Dame University of Oklahoma — Norman University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh University of Puerto Rico — Mayaguez University of Rhode Island — Kingston University of Rochester University of South Carolina — Columbia University of South Florida University of Southern California University of Tennessee — Knoxville University of Tennessee Health Science Center University of Texas — Austin University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas University of Utah University of Vermont University of Virginia University of Washington — Seattle University of Wisconsin — Madison US Naval Postgraduate School Utah State University Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Wake Forest University Washington State University — Pullman Washington University Wayne State University West Virginia University Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Yale University Yeshiva University

Page 72

1999 — Federal Research x $1000

81,828 140,467 38,609 53,751 59,767 98,643 323,598 201,154 52,162 35,801 23,805 29,613 82,274 177,118 22,863 28,436 27,322 26,467 270,140 188,429 23,028 35,056 128,627 46,948 40,669 193,271 43,492 19,707 159,669 69,021 55,094 67,206 53,310 98,753 108,163 34,937 105,045 356,406 242,012 32,249 52,702 113,170 46,643 72,989 58,376 43,191 211,647 55,778 25,429 57,641 206,618 86,828

1990 — Federal Research x $1000

50,241 85,901 34,278 36,218 42,925 88,144 233,420 186,018 31,590 29,344 15,421 18,698 32,918 119,607 16,643 11,129 10,693 26,065 173,002 117,320 18,545 26,531 136,651 26,629 39,427 160,024 47,030 21,999 141,759 37,533 38,069 37,368 28,060 71,097 80,581 39,523 76,059 263,037 231,358 22,420 76,271 86,337 53,817 59,435 39,040 34,774 136,799 36,849 27,990 80,657 187,508 84,163

Net Change in Constant Dollars

31,588 54,566 4,331 17,533 16,842 10,499 90,178 15,136 20,572 6,457 8,384 10,916 49,355 57,510 6,220 17,307 16,628 401 97,139 71,109 4,483 8,525 (8,023) 20,319 1,242 33,247 (3,539) (2,292) 17,910 31,488 17,025 29,838 25,250 27,655 27,582 (4,585) 28,986 93,369 10,654 9,829 (23,569) 26,833 (7,174) 13,554 19,335 8,417 74,847 18,929 (2,561) (23,017) 19,109 2,665

Percent Change in Constant Dollars

63% 64% 13% 48% 39% 12% 39% 8% 65% 22% 54% 58% 150% 48% 37% 156% 156% 2% 56% 61% 24% 32% -6% 76% 3% 21% -8% -10% 13% 84% 45% 80% 90% 39% 34% -12% 38% 35% 5% 44% -31% 31% -13% 23% 50% 24% 55% 51% -9% -29% 10% 3%

Net Change in National Rank

Net Change in Control Rank

10 13 -6 9 5 -9 2 -2 13 0 15 18 42 5 5 44 44 -10 8 10 -1 7 -12 21 -19 0 -25 -26 -7 21 8 21 23 8 4 -26 6 2 -3 12 -37 -1 -24 -3 8 -6 8 13 -20 -32 -2 -14

Change

8 6 -5 5 2 -4 1 0 8 0 11 15 30 4 2 36 36 -7 4 8 -2 5 -4 15 -13 -1 -18 -21 -4 14 5 14 16 5 2 -20 3 0 -1 7 -30 -1 -18 -3 3 -4 3 9 -16 -8 -2 -4

Endowment Assets in Constant 1998 Dollars 2000 — Endowment Assets x $1000

144,026 307,256 62,833 39,985 135,148 447,999 3,206,440 1,742,361 365,068 569,013 124,024 142,557 195,063 1,064,360 2,974,714 402,446 127,088 242,059 3,082,382 980,348 NR 62,480 1,231,459 257,834 228,257 2,072,943 248,454 160,821 1,551,441 92,948 282,246 289,362 329,926 686,863 305,529 182,154 1,674,642 878,067 1,040,390 NR 74,034 2,229,282 217,324 354,574 933,742 420,921 4,077,919 152,964 288,731 268,512 9,711,759 746,577

1994 — Endowment Assets x $1000

47,212 90,131 34,829 22,163 59,307 266,297 1,072,104 728,784 183,522 189,484 65,808 54,122 115,283 257,518 976,489 155,540 66,660 78,495 1,627,010 429,920 NR 19,940 693,716 87,010 72,732 879,195 73,264 62,275 749,421 21,126 20,321 85,871 136,600 230,709 127,903 106,596 805,197 330,736 421,059 NR 27,868 931,447 97,930 183,426 447,083 250,441 1,930,870 70,159 115,816 150,724 3,920,719 348,830

Net Change in Constant Dollars

Percent Change in Constant Dollars

Headcount Enrollment

Net Change in National Rank

Net Change in Control Rank

96,814 217,125 28,004 17,821 75,841 181,702 2,134,337 1,013,577 181,547 379,528 58,216 88,434 79,780 806,842 1,998,225 246,906 60,428 163,563 1,455,372 550,428

205% 241% 80% 80% 128% 68% 199% 139% 99% 200% 88% 163% 69% 313% 205% 159% 91% 208% 89% 128%

66 54 -29 -44 9 -15 1 3 -7 29 -16 37 -34 43 0 24 -19 50 -5 4

13 17 -19 -25 -1 -8 0 2 -5 7 -7 8 -24 9 0 8 -9 11 -4 -2

42,540 537,743 170,823 155,525 1,193,748 175,190 98,546 802,021 71,822 261,924 203,491 193,326 456,153 177,626 75,558 869,444 547,331 619,331

213% 78% 196% 214% 136% 239% 158% 107% 340% 1289% 237% 142% 198% 139% 71% 108% 165% 147%

60 -7 36 52 -3 61 37 -1 119 298 58 17 23 17 -34 -3 14 12

12 -4 7 11 -2 17 5 -2 28 91 18 0 3 1 -23 -2 -2 1

46,165 1,297,836 119,394 171,148 486,659 170,480 2,147,049 82,805 172,915 117,789 5,791,040 397,748

166% 139% 122% 93% 109% 68% 111% 118% 149% 78% 148% 114%

28 -2 1 -10 0 -15 0 5 16 -27 0 1

-1 -2 -12 -7 3 -6 -1 -4 -1 -10 0 6

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Fall 1999 — Total Student Enrollment

Fall 1990 — Total Student Enrollment

5,553 32,864 25,031 682 4,618 13,715 37,846 45,361 22,930 22,142 12,532 14,677 24,374 24,653 10,654 23,694 2,936 17,236 21,855 26,162 12,794 14,577 8,108 23,430 34,839 28,766 26,437 2,116 49,009 3,170 2,544 20 1,953 1,552 25,781 10,206 22,433 35,559 40,099 NR 20,865 10,022 23,481 27,910 6,082 20,799 12,088 31,025 22,315 NA 11,029 5,655

4,727 34,829 26,025 556 3,215 13,841 36,391 57,168 25,058 24,453 11,487 13,260 23,950 23,878 10,007 20,774 2,818 18,840 21,868 28,120 9,866 16,047 9,291 25,613 32,326 28,374 26,055 1,785 49,617 3,016 2,456 NR 1,800 1,529 24,922 11,076 21,110 33,854 43,209 1,749 15,155 9,161 21,764 25,568 5,477 18,412 11,990 33,872 20,854 NA 10,994 4,670

Page 73

Net Change in Enrollment

Percent Change in Enrollment

826 (1,965) (994) 126 1,403 (126) 1,455 (11,807) (2,128) (2,311) 1,045 1,417 424 775 647 2,920 118 (1,604) (13) (1,958) 2,928 (1,470) (1,183) (2,183) 2,513 392 382 331 (608) 154 88

17% -6% -4% 23% 44% -1% 4% -21% -8% -9% 9% 11% 2% 3% 6% 14% 4% -9% 0% -7% 30% -9% -13% -9% 8% 1% 1% 19% -1% 5% 4%

153 23 859 (870) 1,323 1,705 (3,110)

9% 2% 3% -8% 6% 5% -7%

5,710 861 1,717 2,342 605 2,387 98 (2,847) 1,461

38% 9% 8% 9% 11% 13% 1% -8% 7%

35 985

0% 21%

Institutional Characteristics and TheCenter Measures Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private

Arizona State University — Tempe Auburn University — Auburn Baylor College of Medicine Boston University Brandeis University Brown University California Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University Case Western Reserve University Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science Clemson University Colorado State University Columbia University Cornell University Dartmouth College Duke University Emory University Florida A&M University Florida State University George Washington University Georgetown University Georgia Institute of Technology Harvard University Howard University Indiana University — Bloomington Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis Iowa State University Johns Hopkins University Kansas State University Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology Medical College of Wisconsin Medical University of South Carolina Michigan State University Mississippi State University Montana State University — Bozeman Mount Sinai School of Medicine New Jersey Institute of Technology New Mexico State University — Las Cruces New York University North Carolina State University Northeastern University Northwestern University Ohio State University — Columbus Oklahoma State University — Stillwater Oregon Health Sciences University Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University — Hershey Medical Ctr Pennsylvania State University — University Park Princeton University

Page 74

Institutional Characteristics

State

Highest Degree Offered

AZ AL TX MA MA RI CA PA OH NJ SC CO NY NY NH NC GA FL FL DC DC GA MA DC IN IN IA MD KS LA LA MA WI SC MI MS MT NY NJ NM NY NC MA IL OH OK OR OR PA PA NJ

Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral

Has a Medical School

Federal Land Grant Institution

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes-1890 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes-System No-System Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Research Focus

Moderate Enviro and Eng Moderate Life and Eng All Life Science Strong Life Science Moderate Life and Social Moderate Life Science Strong Physical Science Moderate Eng and Computer Heavy Life Science All Life Science Strong Life Science Strong Life Science Strong Life Science Moderate Life and Physical Heavy Life Science Heavy Life Science All Life Science Strong Life Science Moderate Physical Science Moderate Life and Math Heavy Life Science Strong Engineering Strong Life Science Strong Life Science Moderate Life and Physical Heavy Life Science Moderate Life Science Moderate Life and Eng Strong Life Science Moderate Life Science All Life Science Moderate Physical and Eng All Life Science All Life Science Strong Life Science Moderate Life and Eng Moderate Life Science All Life Science Strong Engineering Strong Engineering Heavy Life Science Moderate Life and Eng Moderate Engineering Strong Life Science Strong Life Science Moderate Life and Eng Heavy Life Science Moderate Life and Enviro All Life Science Moderate Engineering Moderate Physical and Eng

Institutional Characteristics and TheCenter Measures

National Rankings Total Student Enrollment Fall 99

44,215 22,120 1,186 28,487 4,527 7,758 1,889 8,438 9,300 211 16,982 27,036 21,167 22,089 5,344 11,811 11,294 12,082 32,878 20,346 12,498 14,074 24,214 9,108 36,201 27,587 26,110 17,801 21,543 31,639 2,799 9,972 1,279 2,383 43,038 16,076 11,658 495 8,258 15,449 37,132 28,011 23,556 17,041 48,003 21,014 1,849 16,041 593 40,658 6,440

2001 — No. of Measures in Top 25 Nationally

0 0 1 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 8 9 2 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 3 5

Institutional Control Rankings

2001 2000 2000 — — — No. of Measures No. of Measures No. of Measures in Top 26–50 in Top 26-50 in Top 25 Nationally Nationally Nationally

1 0 4 4 2 3 4 2 7 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 3 2

0 0 1 0 0 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 8 8 2 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 5

1 0 4 3 2 3 3 2 5 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 5 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 4 1

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

2001 2001 — — No. of Measures No. of Measures in Top 25 Among in Top 26–50 Among Privates/Publics Privates/Publics

0 0 6 5 2 4 8 5 7 0 0 0 9 9 5 9 4 0 0 1 1 7 9 0 3 1 2 9 0 0 0 9 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 7 2 0 9 7 0 0 0 0 8 8

2000 — No. of Measures in Top 25 Among Privates/Publics

2000 — No. of Measures in Top 26–50 Among Privates/Publics

0 0 5 5 2 4 9 5 6 0 0 0 9 8 4 9 5 0 0 1 3 6 9 0 2 0 1 9 0 0 0 9 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 8 8

3 0 2 3 6 5 0 4 3 1 0 5 0 1 4 0 4 0 3 7 5 1 0 4 4 4 6 0 0 3 0 0 4 1 6 0 0 4 0 0 1 5 4 0 2 1 2 2 0 1 1

3 0 1 3 6 5 1 4 2 3 1 4 0 0 3 0 5 0 3 6 8 1 0 3 2 4 5 0 0 3 0 0 4 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 2 7 3 0 1 0 3 3 0 1 1

Page 75

Institutional Characteristics and TheCenter Measures Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically continued Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public

Purdue University — West Lafayette Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rice University Rockefeller University Rush University Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick Saint Louis University — St. Louis Stanford University State Univ. of New York Downstate Medical Center Syracuse University Temple University Texas A&M University Texas Tech University Thomas Jefferson University Tufts University Tulane University University at Albany University at Buffalo University at Stony Brook University of Alabama — Birmingham University of Alabama — Huntsville University of Alaska — Fairbanks University of Arizona University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences University of California — Berkeley University of California — Davis University of California — Irvine University of California — Los Angeles University of California — San Diego University of California — San Francisco University of California — Santa Barbara University of California — Santa Cruz University of Chicago University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati University of Colorado — Boulder University of Colorado Health Sciences Center University of Connecticut — Health Center University of Connecticut — Storrs University of Dayton University of Delaware University of Florida University of Georgia University of Hawaii — Manoa University of Houston — University Park University of Idaho University of Illinois — Chicago University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign University of Iowa University of Kansas — Lawrence University of Kansas Medical Center University of Kentucky

Page 76

Institutional Characteristics

State

Highest Degree Offered

IN NY TX NY IL NJ MO CA NY NY PA TX TX PA MA LA NY NY NY AL AL AK AZ AR CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA IL OH CO CO CT CT OH DE FL GA HI TX ID IL IL IA KS KS KY

Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. First-Professional Only Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof.

Has a Medical School

Federal Land Grant Institution

Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes-System Yes No-System Yes-System No-System No-System No-System No-System No-System No-System

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Research Focus

Moderate Life and Eng Strong Engineering Moderate Physical and Comp All Life Science All Life Science Moderate Life Science All Life Science Moderate Life and Eng All Life Science Moderate Computer Sci Strong Life Science Moderate Life and Enviro Moderate Life and Eng All Life Science Heavy Life Science Heavy Life Science Strong Life Science Strong Life Science Strong Life Science Heavy Life Science Moderate Physical and Eng Moderate Physical Science Moderate Life and Physical All Life Science Moderate Life, Physical, Eng Heavy Life Science Strong Life Science Strong Life Science Moderate Life Science All Life Science Moderate Engineering Moderate Physical Science Strong Life Science Heavy Life Science Moderate Physical and Enviro All Life Science All Life Science Moderate Life and Eng Heavy Engineering Moderate Engineering Strong Life Science Heavy Life Science Moderate Life and Enviro Moderate Life and Eng Strong Life Science Heavy Life Science Moderate Engineering Heavy Life Science Moderate Life Science All Life Science Strong Life Science

Institutional Characteristics and TheCenter Measures

National Rankings Total Student Enrollment Fall 99

39,471 7,650 4,274 142 1,299 35,308 14,062 18,083 1,516 18,535 28,124 43,817 24,249 2,270 9,269 11,426 16,901 24,256 19,139 15,098 6,874 6,768 34,326 1,861 31,347 25,092 19,277 36,351 19,894 3,491 20,056 11,302 12,016 27,467 28,851 2,452 498 18,721 10,223 21,206 43,382 30,912 17,612 32,651 11,305 24,610 38,851 28,846 25,406 2,432 23,060

2001 — No. of Measures in Top 25 Nationally

1 0 2 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 8 1 0 7 5 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0

Institutional Control Rankings

2001 2000 2000 — — — No. of Measures No. of Measures No. of Measures in Top 26–50 in Top 26-50 in Top 25 Nationally Nationally Nationally

4 0 1 2 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 2 1 2 0 1 0 3 2 6 2 0 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 0 2

1 0 2 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 8 1 0 7 5 6 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0

6 1 3 2 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 2 1 0 2 3 3 0 0 3 0 1 4 2 1 2 0 3 0 4 3 5 1 0 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 2 2 6 1 0 2

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

2001 2001 — — No. of Measures No. of Measures in Top 25 Among in Top 26–50 Among Privates/Publics Privates/Publics

5 0 3 3 0 4 0 9 0 0 0 6 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 7 0 9 5 2 9 6 7 1 0 9 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 9 2 0 0 0 2 8 4 1 0 0

2000 — No. of Measures in Top 25 Among Privates/Publics

2000 — No. of Measures in Top 26–50 Among Privates/Publics

6 0 4 3 0 4 0 9 0 0 0 7 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 6 0 9 6 2 9 6 7 1 0 8 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 8 2 0 0 0 1 8 7 1 0 0

2 6 5 4 4 5 7 0 0 7 2 2 1 3 5 7 0 6 4 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 3 0 2 0 5 3 1 5 4 4 0 1 3 1 1 5 4 3 0 5 1 2 3 0 7

3 7 6 4 3 5 6 0 0 8 1 3 2 3 6 7 0 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 2 0 5 2 0 5 4 4 0 1 3 2 0 5 3 4 0 3 1 5 4 0 6

Page 77

Institutional Characteristics and TheCenter Measures Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically continued Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Private

University of Maryland — Baltimore University of Maryland — College Park University of Massachusetts — Amherst University of Massachusetts Medical Sch — Worcester University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey University of Miami University of Michigan — Ann Arbor University of Minnesota — Twin Cities University of Missouri — Columbia University of Nebraska — Lincoln University of Nevada — Reno University of New Hampshire — Durham University of New Mexico — Albuquerque University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill University of Notre Dame University of Oklahoma — Norman University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh University of Puerto Rico — Mayaguez University of Rhode Island — Kingston University of Rochester University of South Carolina — Columbia University of South Florida University of Southern California University of Tennessee — Knoxville University of Tennessee Health Science Center University of Texas — Austin University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas University of Utah University of Vermont University of Virginia University of Washington — Seattle University of Wisconsin — Madison US Naval Postgraduate School Utah State University Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Wake Forest University Washington State University — Pullman Washington University Wayne State University West Virginia University Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Yale University Yeshiva University

Page 78

Institutional Characteristics

State

Highest Degree Offered

Has a Medical School

MD MD MA MA NJ FL MI MN MO NE NV NH NM NC IN OK OK OR PA PA PR RI NY SC FL CA TN TN TX TX TX TX TX TX UT VT VA WA WI CA UT TN VA VA NC WA MO MI WV MA CT NY

Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Non-Degree Granting Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral Doctoral Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof. Non-Degree Granting Doctoral and First-Prof. Doctoral and First-Prof.

Yes

Federal Land Grant Institution

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes-System Yes-System Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Research Focus

All Life Science Moderate Engineering Moderate Life Science All Life Science All Life Science Strong Life Science Strong Life Science Strong Life Science Strong Life Science Moderate Life Science Strong Life Science Strong Environmental Science Moderate Life and Eng Heavy Life Science Strong Physical Science Moderate Environmental All Life Science Moderate Life Science Heavy Life Science Heavy Life Science Strong Life Science Strong Environmental Science Strong Life Science Moderate Life and Eng Strong Life Science Moderate Life Science Moderate Life and Eng All Life Science Moderate Physical and Eng All Life Science All Life Science All Life Science All Life Science All Life Science Strong Life Science Heavy Life Science Strong Life Science Strong Life Science Strong Life Science Moderate Engineering Strong Engineering Heavy Life Science Heavy Life Science Moderate Life, Enviro and Eng All Life Science Strong Life Science Heavy Life Science Heavy Life Science Moderate Life and Eng Heavy Environmental Science Heavy Life Science All Life Science

Institutional Characteristics and TheCenter Measures

National Rankings Total Student Enrollment Fall 99

5,553 32,864 25,031 682 4,618 13,715 37,846 45,361 22,930 22,142 12,532 14,677 24,374 24,653 10,654 23,694 2,936 17,236 21,855 26,162 12,794 14,577 8,108 23,430 34,839 28,766 26,437 2,116 49,009 3,170 2,544 20 1,953 1,552 25,781 10,206 22,433 35,559 40,099 NR 20,865 10,022 23,481 27,910 6,082 20,799 12,088 31,025 22,315 NR 11,029 5,655

2001 — No. of Measures in Top 25 Nationally

0 1 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 1

Institutional Control Rankings

2001 2000 2000 — — — No. of Measures No. of Measures No. of Measures in Top 26–50 in Top 26-50 in Top 25 Nationally Nationally Nationally

0 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 4 5 0 4 0 1 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 1 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 7 7 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0

0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 1 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 2 5 0 6 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 2

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

2001 2001 — — No. of Measures No. of Measures in Top 25 Among in Top 26–50 Among Privates/Publics Privates/Publics

0 5 0 0 0 4 9 8 0 1 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 9 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 0 7 0 0 1 1 4 5 0 8 8 8 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 2

2000 — No. of Measures in Top 25 Among Privates/Publics

2000 — No. of Measures in Top 26–50 Among Privates/Publics

0 5 0 0 0 3 9 8 0 2 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 9 6 0 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 7 0 0 1 1 4 5 0 7 8 8 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 2

4 4 3 1 1 4 0 1 6 2 0 0 2 0 6 3 0 3 0 2 0 0 2 3 1 0 2 0 2 3 0 4 1 3 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 2 6 7 2 1 5 1 3 0 6

3 4 3 2 2 2 0 1 7 2 0 0 1 0 6 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 3 1 0 1 0 2 3 1 4 1 3 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 6 4 1 3 2 3 0 6

Page 79

Student Characteristics Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private

Arizona State University — Tempe Auburn University — Auburn Baylor College of Medicine Boston University Brandeis University Brown University California Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University Case Western Reserve University Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science Clemson University Colorado State University Columbia University Cornell University Dartmouth College Duke University Emory University Florida A&M University Florida State University George Washington University Georgetown University Georgia Institute of Technology Harvard University Howard University Indiana University — Bloomington Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis Iowa State University Johns Hopkins University Kansas State University Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology Medical College of Wisconsin Medical University of South Carolina Michigan State University Mississippi State University Montana State University — Bozeman Mount Sinai School of Medicine New Jersey Institute of Technology New Mexico State University — Las Cruces New York University North Carolina State University Northeastern University Northwestern University Ohio State University — Columbus Oklahoma State University — Stillwater Oregon Health Sciences University Oregon State University Pennsylvania State University — Hershey Medical Ctr Pennsylvania State University — University Park Princeton University

Page 80

Fall 1999 Headcount Enrollment Total Student Enrollment

44,215 22,120 1,186 28,487 4,527 7,758 1,889 8,438 9,300 211 16,982 27,036 21,167 22,089 5,344 11,811 11,294 12,082 32,878 20,346 12,498 14,074 24,214 9,108 36,201 27,587 26,110 17,801 21,543 31,639 2,799 9,972 1,279 2,383 43,038 16,076 11,658 495 8,258 15,449 37,132 28,011 23,556 17,041 48,003 21,014 1,849 16,041 593 40,658 6,440

Total Undergraduate Students

33,948 18,669 0 18,018 3,112 6,108 907 5,265 3,380 200 13,526 20,667 7,763 16,074 4,057 6,368 6,215 10,691 25,965 8,695 6,361 10,256 10,148 5,986 28,511 20,416 21,503 5,498 17,903 25,911 797 4,300 0 422 33,966 12,879 10,458 0 5,265 12,831 18,204 21,684 19,228 9,477 36,092 16,810 656 13,168 0 34,505 4,672

%

77% 84% 0% 63% 69% 79% 48% 62% 36% 95% 80% 76% 37% 73% 76% 54% 55% 88% 79% 43% 51% 73% 42% 66% 79% 74% 82% 31% 83% 82% 28% 43% 0% 18% 79% 80% 90% 0% 64% 83% 49% 77% 82% 56% 75% 80% 35% 82% 0% 85% 73%

Total Graduate Students

9,806 2,793 520 8,518 1,415 1,334 982 3,173 4,435 11 3,456 5,838 11,316 4,765 1,015 3,887 3,451 1,047 6,228 9,578 3,416 3,818 11,388 2,219 6,786 4,792 4,209 11,835 3,244 4,729 682 5,489 467 993 7,732 3,004 1,200 40 2,993 2,618 15,642 6,038 3,749 6,131 9,153 3,921 529 2,727 169 6,153 1,768

%

22% 13% 44% 30% 31% 17% 52% 38% 48% 5% 20% 22% 53% 22% 19% 33% 31% 9% 19% 47% 27% 27% 47% 24% 19% 17% 16% 66% 15% 15% 24% 55% 37% 42% 18% 19% 10% 8% 36% 17% 42% 22% 16% 36% 19% 19% 29% 17% 28% 15% 27%

Total FirstProfessional Students

461 658 666 1,951 0 316 0 0 1,485 0 0 531 2,088 1,250 272 1,556 1,628 344 685 2,073 2,721 0 2,678 903 904 2,379 398 468 396 999 1,320 183 812 968 1,340 193 0 455 0 0 3,286 289 579 1,433 2,758 283 664 146 424 0 0

Student Characteristics

%

1% 3% 56% 7% 0% 4% 0% 0% 16% 0% 0% 2% 10% 6% 5% 13% 14% 3% 2% 10% 22% 0% 11% 10% 2% 9% 2% 3% 2% 3% 47% 2% 63% 41% 3% 1% 0% 92% 0% 0% 9% 1% 2% 8% 6% 1% 36% 1% 72% 0% 0%

Fall 1999 Part-Time Enrollment Percentage of Total Students Enrolled Part-Time

27% 13% 0% 19% 11% 5% 0% 12% 30% 20% 14% 26% 20% 6% 2% 3% 12% 16% 20% 38% 11% 10% 26% 17% 14% 47% 15% 50% 21% 15% 16% 3% 27% 17% 19% 20% 17% 0% 42% 28% 29% 27% 35% 19% 17% 25% 17% 12% 3% 10% 2%

Percentage of Undergraduates Enrolled Part-Time

17% 7% 0% 8% 1% 4% 0% 3% 3% 17% 5% 12% 8% 6% 1% 0% 1% 12% 11% 6% 2% 6% 13% 10% 6% 32% 7% 5% 12% 9% 8% 1% 0% 6% 10% 11% 11% 0% 19% 19% 6% 14% 28% 9% 11% 13% 8% 7% 0% 5% 2%

Percentage of Graduates Enrolled Part-Time

10% 6% 0% 11% 10% 1% 0% 9% 25% 3% 9% 15% 11% 0% 1% 3% 9% 4% 8% 30% 8% 4% 14% 7% 8% 14% 7% 45% 9% 6% 7% 2% 27% 10% 8% 9% 6% 0% 23% 9% 23% 13% 7% 10% 7% 11% 9% 5% 3% 5% 0%

1999–2000 Degrees Awarded Percentage of FirstProfessionals Enrolled Part-Time

Associate’s Degrees

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 19 433 0 0 299 45 382 355 6 0 12 48 195 718 0 10 99 0 57 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 84 804 177 244 5 325 0 19 0 0 4,145 0

Bachelor’s Degrees

6,622 4,182 0 3,779 717 1,604 202 1,205 714 15 2,554 3,621 1,639 3,454 1,106 1,659 1,390 1,466 5,342 1,592 1,564 2,027 2,125 1,136 5,203 2,156 4,039 1,714 3,154 3,830 301 1,253 0 201 6,897 2,418 1,712 0 810 1,830 3,973 3,710 2,534 2,007 6,755 2,836 309 2,797 0 9,061 1,122

Master’s Degrees

2,207 727 55 3,139 289 251 114 1,197 1,261 0 867 1,053 4,443 1,334 310 1,088 901 325 1,460 2,776 1,325 1,006 2,993 457 1,655 689 760 2,783 633 1,094 173 1,471 74 284 1,912 724 316 11 871 596 5,128 1,166 1,338 2,166 2,310 910 81 588 5 1,183 338

Page 81

Doctorate Degrees

286 186 61 274 111 149 127 152 202 0 116 180 461 468 38 230 160 8 263 236 107 230 602 121 409 43 238 351 132 275 33 475 11 25 444 128 32 27 52 76 402 316 76 321 620 185 38 158 22 513 279

Professional Degrees

159 127 150 603 0 81 0 0 431 0 0 129 622 370 61 459 436 100 220 582 796 0 800 467 259 604 99 112 97 235 326 0 198 205 315 49 0 119 0 0 883 73 189 427 679 72 151 41 95 0 0

Student Characteristics Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically continued Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public

Purdue University — West Lafayette Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rice University Rockefeller University Rush University Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick Saint Louis University — St. Louis Stanford University State Univ. of New York Downstate Medical Center Syracuse University Temple University Texas A&M University Texas Tech University Thomas Jefferson University Tufts University Tulane University University at Albany University at Buffalo University at Stony Brook University of Alabama — Birmingham University of Alabama — Huntsville University of Alaska — Fairbanks University of Arizona University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences University of California — Berkeley University of California — Davis University of California — Irvine University of California — Los Angeles University of California — San Diego University of California — San Francisco University of California — Santa Barbara University of California — Santa Cruz University of Chicago University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati University of Colorado — Boulder University of Colorado Health Sciences Center University of Connecticut — Health Center University of Connecticut — Storrs University of Dayton University of Delaware University of Florida University of Georgia University of Hawaii — Manoa University of Houston — University Park University of Idaho University of Illinois — Chicago University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign University of Iowa University of Kansas — Lawrence University of Kansas Medical Center University of Kentucky

Page 82

Fall 1999 Headcount Enrollment Total Student Enrollment

39,471 7,650 4,274 142 1,299 35,308 14,062 18,083 1,516 18,535 28,124 43,817 24,249 2,270 9,269 11,426 16,901 24,256 19,139 15,098 6,874 6,768 34,326 1,861 31,347 25,092 19,277 36,351 19,894 3,491 20,056 11,302 12,016 27,467 28,851 2,452 498 18,721 10,223 21,206 43,382 30,912 17,612 32,651 11,305 24,610 38,851 28,846 25,406 2,432 23,060

Total Undergraduate Students

32,526 4,926 2,785 0 197 27,799 9,882 7,784 472 12,469 18,175 36,082 20,227 838 4,977 7,151 11,737 16,258 12,690 10,420 5,513 6,028 26,258 549 22,593 19,517 15,361 24,668 16,230 91 17,699 10,269 3,844 20,381 22,976 525 0 12,353 7,018 18,098 31,633 24,040 11,939 24,672 8,591 16,170 28,916 19,537 18,995 482 16,841

%

82% 64% 65% 0% 15% 79% 70% 43% 31% 67% 65% 82% 83% 37% 54% 63% 69% 67% 66% 69% 80% 89% 76% 30% 72% 78% 80% 68% 82% 3% 88% 91% 32% 74% 80% 21% 0% 66% 69% 85% 73% 78% 68% 76% 76% 66% 74% 68% 75% 20% 73%

Total Graduate Students

6,155 2,724 1,489 142 617 7,326 2,793 9,269 286 5,291 7,141 6,964 3,424 538 2,656 2,699 5,164 6,334 5,888 3,674 1,361 740 6,944 436 7,676 4,245 3,535 9,850 3,178 1,984 2,357 1,033 7,155 6,086 5,383 1,029 0 5,731 2,753 3,108 8,822 5,540 5,197 6,507 2,398 6,294 8,974 6,401 5,870 1,256 4,822

%

16% 36% 35% 100% 47% 21% 20% 51% 19% 29% 25% 16% 14% 24% 29% 24% 31% 26% 31% 24% 20% 11% 20% 23% 24% 17% 18% 27% 16% 57% 12% 9% 60% 22% 19% 42% 0% 31% 27% 15% 20% 18% 30% 20% 21% 26% 23% 22% 23% 52% 21%

Total FirstProfessional Students

790 0 0 0 485 183 1,387 1,030 758 775 2,808 771 598 894 1,636 1,576 0 1,664 561 1,004 0 0 1,124 876 1,078 1,330 381 1,833 486 1,416 0 0 1,017 1,000 492 898 498 637 452 0 2,927 1,332 476 1,472 316 2,146 961 2,908 541 694 1,397

Student Characteristics

%

2% 0% 0% 0% 37% 1% 10% 6% 50% 4% 10% 2% 2% 39% 18% 14% 0% 7% 3% 7% 0% 0% 3% 47% 3% 5% 2% 5% 2% 41% 0% 0% 8% 4% 2% 37% 100% 3% 4% 0% 7% 4% 3% 5% 3% 9% 2% 10% 2% 29% 6%

Fall 1999 Part-Time Enrollment Percentage of Total Students Enrolled Part-Time

Percentage of Undergraduates Enrolled Part-Time

14% 18% 3% 0% 35% 22% 45% 30% 27% 23% 33% 10% 15% 31% 8% 19% 24% 22% 24% 32% 48% 47% 21% 20% 9% 10% 6% 5% 5% 0% 4% 6% 17% 29% 22% 39% 1% 22% 25% 19% 12% 14% 29% 36% 25% 21% 11% 22% 22% 15% 20%

9% 1% 2% 0% 1% 8% 30% 8% 15% 6% 14% 5% 9% 18% 0% 13% 7% 9% 7% 23% 35% 43% 14% 7% 5% 8% 4% 3% 4% 0% 3% 5% 0% 19% 9% 1% 0% 5% 5% 15% 7% 8% 12% 25% 11% 9% 4% 9% 8% 2% 9%

Percentage of Graduates Enrolled Part-Time

5% 17% 1% 0% 34% 13% 13% 22% 12% 16% 18% 4% 6% 13% 7% 5% 18% 13% 18% 9% 13% 4% 8% 12% 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 16% 10% 13% 33% 0% 16% 20% 4% 5% 5% 17% 11% 14% 12% 7% 12% 14% 13% 11%

1999–2000 Degrees Awarded Percentage of FirstProfessionals Enrolled Part-Time

Associate’s Degrees

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

893 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 3 1 10 0 0 8 0 41 0 15 0 0 0 281 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 330 0 0 0 18 0 8 419 0 0 0 0 0 18 33 0 0 0

Bachelor’s Degrees

5,470 1,028 738 0 94 5,601 1,392 1,737 212 2,370 3,119 7,512 3,587 262 1,257 1,302 2,391 3,077 2,270 1,586 676 445 4,932 197 6,287 4,698 3,334 6,220 3,530 105 4,596 2,421 956 2,830 4,734 223 0 2,802 1,423 3,327 7,654 4,867 2,620 3,551 1,520 2,928 6,370 3,857 3,235 209 3,187

Master’s Degrees

1,287 702 376 0 117 1,403 668 2,052 59 1,554 1,469 1,388 835 127 728 1,021 1,238 1,390 1,440 1,076 301 169 1,260 95 1,687 660 630 2,360 558 187 477 195 2,126 1,185 1,046 149 0 1,174 680 709 2,224 1,186 1,040 1,389 507 1,587 2,298 1,294 1,278 152 1,067

Page 83

Doctorate Degrees

468 93 115 19 44 371 123 589 14 147 263 490 141 16 100 126 155 303 244 125 29 20 405 22 756 357 202 606 294 77 232 90 391 238 266 44 0 275 31 164 516 352 153 204 79 201 597 317 246 12 249

Professional Degrees

176 0 0 0 110 83 373 263 190 231 747 182 180 215 404 439 0 438 138 254 0 0 307 274 340 377 85 613 130 336 0 0 287 272 172 212 130 209 130 0 824 373 128 465 100 513 278 550 277 157 369

Student Characteristics Institutions with Over $20 Million in Federal Research, Alphabetically continued Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Private

University of Maryland — Baltimore University of Maryland — College Park University of Massachusetts — Amherst University of Massachusetts Medical Sch — Worcester University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey University of Miami University of Michigan — Ann Arbor University of Minnesota — Twin Cities University of Missouri — Columbia University of Nebraska — Lincoln University of Nevada — Reno University of New Hampshire — Durham University of New Mexico — Albuquerque University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill University of Notre Dame University of Oklahoma — Norman University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh University of Puerto Rico — Mayaguez University of Rhode Island — Kingston University of Rochester University of South Carolina — Columbia University of South Florida University of Southern California University of Tennessee — Knoxville University of Tennessee Health Science Center University of Texas — Austin University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas University of Utah University of Vermont University of Virginia University of Washington — Seattle University of Wisconsin — Madison US Naval Postgraduate School Utah State University Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Wake Forest University Washington State University — Pullman Washington University Wayne State University West Virginia University Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Yale University Yeshiva University

Page 84

Fall 1999 Headcount Enrollment Total Student Enrollment

5,553 32,864 25,031 682 4,618 13,715 37,846 45,361 22,930 22,142 12,532 14,677 24,374 24,653 10,654 23,694 2,936 17,236 21,855 26,162 12,794 14,577 8,108 23,430 34,839 28,766 26,437 2,116 49,009 3,170 2,544 20 1,953 1,552 25,781 10,206 22,433 35,559 40,099 NR 20,865 10,022 23,481 27,910 6,082 20,799 12,088 31,025 22,315 NR 11,029 5,655

Total Undergraduate Students

%

Total Graduate Students

%

Total FirstProfessional Students

%

753 24,717 19,372 0 805 8,628 24,493 32,342 17,811 17,804 9,402 11,893 16,874 15,434 8,014 17,126 774 13,610 11,814 17,168 11,959 10,639 4,528 15,551 26,569 15,594 20,259 244 37,159 262 739 20 654 246 20,840 8,739 13,570 25,638 29,336

14% 75% 77% 0% 17% 63% 65% 71% 78% 80% 75% 81% 69% 63% 75% 72% 26% 79% 54% 66% 93% 73% 56% 66% 76% 54% 77% 12% 76% 8% 29% 100% 33% 16% 81% 86% 60% 72% 73%

2,351 8,147 5,659 267 1,882 3,280 11,063 10,436 3,971 3,954 2,923 2,784 6,479 7,020 2,065 5,988 848 3,117 7,559 7,187 835 3,593 3,168 6,670 7,885 10,477 5,450 499 10,278 1,828 623 0 479 499 4,119 1,087 7,218 8,212 8,604

42% 25% 23% 39% 41% 24% 29% 23% 17% 18% 23% 19% 27% 28% 19% 25% 29% 18% 35% 27% 7% 25% 39% 28% 23% 36% 21% 24% 21% 58% 24% 0% 25% 32% 16% 11% 32% 23% 21%

2,449 0 0 415 1,931 1,807 2,290 2,583 1,148 384 207 0 1,021 2,199 575 580 1,314 509 2,482 1,807 0 345 412 1,209 385 2,695 728 1,373 1,572 1,080 1,182 0 820 807 822 380 1,645 1,709 2,159

44% 0% 0% 61% 42% 13% 6% 6% 5% 2% 2% 0% 4% 9% 5% 2% 45% 3% 11% 7% 0% 2% 5% 5% 1% 9% 3% 65% 3% 34% 46% 0% 42% 52% 3% 4% 7% 5% 5%

17,228 5,780 15,825 21,812 3,990 17,087 6,509 18,393 15,417

83% 58% 67% 78% 66% 82% 54% 59% 69%

3,637 3,102 6,259 5,743 1,198 3,033 4,522 9,829 5,731

17% 31% 27% 21% 20% 15% 37% 32% 26%

0 1,140 1,397 355 894 679 1,057 2,803 1,167

0% 11% 6% 1% 15% 3% 9% 9% 5%

5,413 2,639

49% 47%

4,363 1,380

40% 24%

1,253 1,636

11% 29%

Student Characteristics

Fall 1999 Part-Time Enrollment Percentage of Graduates Enrolled Part-Time

1999–2000 Degrees Awarded Percentage of FirstProfessionals Enrolled Part-Time

Percentage of Total Students Enrolled Part-Time

Percentage of Undergraduates Enrolled Part-Time

29% 20% 20% 13% 14% 13% 9% 36% 14% 19% 37% 23% 35% 17% 2% 27% 21% 14% 18% 22% 8% 31% 15% 25% 45% 21% 17% 4% 12% 28% 16% 0% 13% 5% 37% 21% 20% 16% 13%

6% 9% 7% 0% 2% 6% 4% 24% 5% 9% 22% 11% 17% 3% 0% 9% 4% 8% 9% 10% 8% 13% 3% 12% 30% 3% 9% 0% 9% 1% 8% 0% 7% 5% 31% 15% 4% 11% 9%

19% 11% 14% 13% 12% 6% 6% 12% 8% 9% 15% 12% 18% 13% 2% 17% 17% 5% 9% 12% 0% 18% 13% 13% 15% 18% 8% 4% 3% 27% 8% 0% 7% 1% 6% 6% 16% 5% 5%

4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

40% 5% 37% 11% 6% 19% 17% 54% 19%

27% 1% 21% 2% 1% 13% 7% 30% 4%

13% 4% 16% 9% 5% 6% 10% 22% 15%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%

1% 10%

0% 1%

0% 9%

0% 0%

Associate’s Degrees

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

0 79 86 0 139 0 0 0 0 3 0 180 7 8 0 0 0 0 15 280 4 0 0 12 177 0 0 0 0 35 46 NA 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 NR 85 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 143

Bachelor’s Degrees

Master’s Degrees

Doctorate Degrees

Professional Degrees

351 4,986 4,038 2 108 1,740 5,626 4,880 3,840 3,115 1,410 2,478 2,723 3,387 2,001 2,748 482 3,400 2,804 3,082 1,688 1,771 1,114 3,058 4,733 3,900 3,681 144 7,826 91 424

706 1,645 1,043 29 317 1,082 2,790 2,820 917 692 432 585 1,003 1,725 560 1,501 280 831 2,259 1,978 184 491 859 2,068 1,560 2,848 1,753 61 2,545 286 123

73 461 276 20 69 176 629 604 256 251 84 49 184 425 147 167 17 138 427 316 4 84 211 246 131 481 286 29 659 87 24

622 0 0 100 442 548 627 708 314 119 53 0 226 588 182 201 232 184 589 541 0 64 102 388 93 636 226 339 512 274 314

359 120 3,786 1,776 3,132 6,148 5,550

80 45 974 316 1,318 2,021 1,744

35 55 215 58 343 486 729

187 184 240 93 516 428 510

2,648 1,369 2,378 4,770 884 4,060 1,494 2,331 2,824

730 945 1,287 1,435 454 670 1,337 2,641 1,440

71 190 112 309 28 118 199 222 132

0 360 338 88 253 160 287 458 271

1,356 523

1,363 312

334 126

358 462

Page 85

Page 86

Part III The Top 200 Institutions The following tables list the top 200 universities and colleges on each of the nine performance measures, along with National Merit and Achievement Scholars. (The Source Notes section provides detailed information on each of the ten data elements.) Unlike the previous tables in Parts I and II, this section includes data for all academic institutions regardless of their federal research activity level. TheCenter provides each institution’s rank nationally among all universities as well as its rank by institutional control (i.e., rank among private or public peers). In cases where several institutions tie for last place, we use a different cutoff point. For National Academy members, we list all institutions with at least one National Academy member among their faculty (a total of 186 institutions). In the case of faculty awards, we limit institutions to those with at least three faculty awards (a total of 198 universities and colleges) because an additional 84 institutions tie for 199th place. Tables in this section include:

Data found in these tables may not always match the figures published by the original source. TheCenter makes adjustments, when necessary, to ensure that the data reflect the activity at a single campus rather than that of a multiple campus institution or state university system. When data are missing from the original source, TheCenter may substitute another figure if available. A full discussion of this subject, and the various adjustments or substitutions made to the original data, is in the Data Notes section of this report. TheCenter presents these tables, along with the prior year’s top 200, as Microsoft Excel spreadsheets online at [http://thecenter.ufl.edu].

• 1999 Total Research Expenditures • 1999 Federal Research Expenditures • 2000 Endowment Assets • 2000 Annual Giving • 2000 National Academy Membership • 2000 Faculty Awards • 2000 Doctorates Granted • 1999 Postdoctoral Appointees • 1999 SAT Scores • 2000 National Merit and Achievement Scholars

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 87

The Top 200 Institutions — Total Research Expenditures (1999) Top 50 Institutions in Total Research Expenditures (1999) Johns Hopkins University University of Michigan — Ann Arbor University of Washington — Seattle University of California — Los Angeles University of Wisconsin — Madison University of California — San Diego University of California — Berkeley Stanford University Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of California — San Francisco Texas A&M University Cornell University University of Pennsylvania University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign University of Minnesota — Twin Cities Duke University Pennsylvania State University — University Park Harvard University Ohio State University — Columbus University of Arizona Washington University University of California — Davis University of Florida University of Southern California Columbia University Yale University Baylor College of Medicine North Carolina State University Georgia Institute of Technology University of Texas — Austin University of Maryland — College Park University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh University of Georgia Northwestern University University of Alabama — Birmingham Purdue University — West Lafayette California Institute of Technology Michigan State University University of Iowa Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick Emory University University of Colorado — Boulder Case Western Reserve University University of Rochester University of Illinois — Chicago University of Kentucky Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University New York University University at Buffalo

Page 88

Total Research x $1000

874,518 508,619 482,659 477,620 462,725 461,632 451,539 426,549 420,306 417,095 402,203 395,552 383,569 358,247 356,529 348,274 333,874 326,193 322,810 320,245 315,606 307,950 304,447 280,741 279,587 274,050 272,198 270,621 263,725 258,122 257,628 252,767 249,477 237,493 233,809 232,115 226,411 212,216 207,912 207,135 190,316 189,170 184,237 182,332 177,126 175,093 174,034 169,250 167,179 166,823

Control Rank

National Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Institutional Control

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 7 8 4 5 9 10 6 11 7 12 13 8 14 15 9 10 11 12 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 13 23 24 14 25 26 27 15 28 16 17 29 30 31 18 32

Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : To t a l R e s e a r c h

The Top 200 Institutions — Total Research Expenditures (1999), continued Top 51–100 Institutions in Total Research Expenditures (1999) University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas University of Chicago Iowa State University Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge University of Virginia University of Hawaii — Manoa University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center University of Utah University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati Colorado State University Vanderbilt University University of Missouri — Columbia University at Stony Brook Wayne State University Carnegie Mellon University University of California — Irvine Boston University University of Maryland — Baltimore University of Miami Oregon State University University of Nebraska — Lincoln University of Colorado Health Sciences Center Mount Sinai School of Medicine University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey Princeton University University of South Florida Rockefeller University Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis University of New Mexico — Albuquerque Oregon Health Sciences University Yeshiva University Georgetown University Mississippi State University Arizona State University — Tempe University of South Carolina — Columbia University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston University of California — Santa Barbara Tufts University University of Tennessee — Knoxville Clemson University Florida State University Washington State University — Pullman Utah State University University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston University of Alaska — Fairbanks University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio Tulane University University of Massachusetts — Amherst Kansas State University Oklahoma State University — Stillwater

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Total Research x $1000

165,520 162,805 161,301 158,672 157,487 156,810 155,126 153,843 153,002 150,281 149,675 149,002 148,982 146,832 142,174 141,842 141,102 140,903 139,608 139,285 131,046 130,450 127,765 126,277 124,237 123,961 121,519 116,874 115,850 112,197 111,771 111,426 110,896 107,184 105,835 105,307 104,561 101,728 101,717 99,341 97,673 96,943 95,364 93,580 88,825 87,804 87,324 86,576 85,580 83,108

Control Rank

National Rank

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Page 89

Institutional Control

33 19 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 20 42 43 44 21 45 22 46 23 47 48 49 24 50 25 51 26 52 53 54 27 28 55 56 57 58 59 29 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 30 68 69 70

Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public

The Top 200 Institutions — Total Research Expenditures (1999), continued Top 101–150 Institutions in Total Research Expenditures (1999) University of Massachusetts Medical Sch — Worcester Wake Forest University Auburn University — Auburn New Mexico State University — Las Cruces Virginia Commonwealth University University of Oklahoma — Norman Thomas Jefferson University Indiana University — Bloomington Brown University University of California — Riverside University of Connecticut — Storrs University of Kansas — Lawrence University of Delaware Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Dartmouth College Temple University George Washington University University at Albany University of Vermont West Virginia University University of Idaho University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center University of Arkansas — Fayetteville Medical College of Wisconsin Rush University University of Connecticut — Health Center University of Kansas Medical Center Texas Tech University University of New Hampshire — Durham University of Louisville Medical University of South Carolina University of Puerto Rico — Mayaguez Montana State University — Bozeman University of Nebraska Medical Center University of California — Santa Cruz Brandeis University University of Nevada — Reno University of Wyoming University of Tennessee Health Science Center San Diego State University Pennsylvania State University — Hershey Medical Ctr Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center North Dakota State University — Fargo University of Rhode Island — Kingston University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences University of Houston — University Park University of Central Florida University of Maine — Orono Medical College of Georgia Rice University

Page 90

Total Research x $1000

83,040 82,827 80,544 79,877 79,785 79,568 78,410 77,916 76,330 75,821 75,592 73,831 73,521 71,722 69,522 66,777 66,757 64,278 64,049 63,392 62,531 62,517 61,585 61,446 60,957 59,394 58,921 58,488 57,613 57,051 55,819 55,648 55,475 54,205 52,902 48,305 47,939 47,197 46,090 45,579 45,528 44,726 44,696 44,452 44,066 43,370 42,466 41,452 41,103 41,069

Control Rank

National Rank

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

Institutional Control

71 31 72 73 74 75 32 76 33 77 78 79 80 34 35 81 36 82 83 84 85 86 87 37 38 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 39 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 40

Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : To t a l R e s e a r c h

The Top 200 Institutions — Total Research Expenditures (1999), continued Top 151–200 Institutions in Total Research Expenditures (1999) New Jersey Institute of Technology University of Alabama — Huntsville Syracuse University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute University of Dayton Eastern Kentucky University Georgia State University US Naval Postgraduate School Southern Illinois University — Carbondale University of Oregon College of William and Mary California State University — Long Beach University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute University of Louisiana — Lafayette University of Notre Dame Northeastern University Loyola University Chicago University of Alabama — Tuscaloosa State Univ. of New York Downstate Medical Center Michigan Technological University Lehigh University Saint Louis University — St. Louis MCP Hahnemann University University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science George Mason University New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology University of Missouri — Rolla State Univ. of New York — Coll of Enviro Sci and Forestry Florida International University Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science University of Montana — Missoula University of Memphis Eastern Virginia Medical School Brigham Young University Howard University Desert Research Institute Wright State University — Dayton Old Dominion University Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Drexel University University of New Orleans University of Wisconsin — Milwaukee University of Texas — El Paso University of Maryland — Baltimore County Boston College Colorado School of Mines Florida A&M University Ohio University — Athens San Jose State University New York Medical College

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Total Research x $1000

40,982 40,203 39,640 39,034 36,937 36,708 36,523 34,095 33,169 32,695 31,322 31,283 31,172 30,735 30,483 30,209 29,001 28,909 28,840 28,074 27,902 27,817 27,516 26,816 26,766 26,061 25,893 25,385 25,061 24,484 24,372 24,280 24,096 23,985 23,557 23,376 23,131 23,030 22,898 22,397 22,297 22,207 21,961 21,854 21,726 21,715 21,622 21,437 21,005 20,436

Control Rank

National Rank

151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200

Page 91

Institutional Control

111 112 41 42 43 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 44 45 46 122 123 124 47 48 49 125 126 127 128 129 130 50 131 132 51 52 53 133 134 135 136 54 137 138 139 140 55 141 142 143 144 56

Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Private

The Top 200 Institutions — Federal Research Expenditures (1999) Top 50 Institutions in Federal Research Expenditures (1999) Johns Hopkins University University of Washington — Seattle Stanford University University of Michigan — Ann Arbor Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of California — San Diego University of Pennsylvania Harvard University University of California — Los Angeles University of Wisconsin — Madison Columbia University Cornell University University of California — San Francisco Washington University Yale University University of Minnesota — Twin Cities University of Southern California California Institute of Technology University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh University of California — Berkeley Duke University University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill University of Arizona Pennsylvania State University — University Park University of Alabama — Birmingham University of Texas — Austin Texas A&M University University of Maryland — College Park Baylor College of Medicine University of Colorado — Boulder Case Western Reserve University University of Chicago Ohio State University — Columbus University of Rochester Emory University Northwestern University University of California — Davis Boston University University of Iowa University of Florida Vanderbilt University Georgia Institute of Technology University of Utah New York University University of Virginia University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas University of Miami University of Colorado Health Sciences Center University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati

Page 92

Federal Research x $1000

770,580 368,112 353,947 334,226 308,921 292,007 279,013 266,019 251,999 249,961 240,158 234,792 233,181 218,598 213,404 207,761 199,619 195,303 194,618 191,025 186,757 185,767 182,935 178,126 175,212 165,223 164,913 149,151 145,081 141,111 140,959 140,178 135,720 135,216 132,852 132,816 132,647 124,463 123,390 122,638 122,296 116,887 112,861 111,716 111,124 108,495 101,996 101,883 101,044 100,325

Control Rank

National Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Institutional Control

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 4 5 6 7 6 8 9 7 10 11 8 9 12 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 18 14 15 19 16 17 18 20 19 21 22 20 23 24 21 25 26 22 27 28

Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Private Private Private Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : F e d e r a l R e s e a r c h

The Top 200 Institutions — Federal Research Expenditures (1999), continued Top 51–100 Institutions in Federal Research Expenditures (1999) Purdue University — West Lafayette University at Stony Brook University of Hawaii — Manoa Colorado State University Carnegie Mellon University Michigan State University Yeshiva University University of Illinois — Chicago University at Buffalo University of New Mexico — Albuquerque Mount Sinai School of Medicine University of Maryland — Baltimore Georgetown University Oregon State University Oregon Health Sciences University University of California — Irvine Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University University of California — Santa Barbara Princeton University University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick North Carolina State University University of Kentucky Tufts University University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis Wake Forest University Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Wayne State University University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio New Mexico State University — Las Cruces Thomas Jefferson University University of Georgia Florida State University University of Massachusetts Medical Sch — Worcester University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston Utah State University Iowa State University Arizona State University — Tempe University of Missouri — Columbia Tulane University George Washington University University of South Carolina — Columbia Virginia Commonwealth University Medical College of Wisconsin Dartmouth College Mississippi State University University at Albany Brown University

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Federal Research x $1000

95,708 93,937 93,418 91,943 90,408 89,835 89,680 86,406 85,490 84,976 84,624 84,516 83,972 81,649 76,033 75,505 75,386 74,026 72,974 71,288 69,413 67,341 66,310 66,184 63,618 61,730 61,357 60,293 59,534 57,610 56,904 56,875 56,369 56,080 55,666 55,516 55,061 54,433 54,179 53,905 53,875 50,779 49,944 48,490 48,175 47,087 46,741 46,528 46,242 45,276

Control Rank

National Rank

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Page 93

Institutional Control

29 30 31 32 23 33 24 34 35 36 25 37 26 38 39 40 41 42 27 43 44 45 46 47 28 48 49 29 30 50 51 52 31 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 32 33 61 62 34 35 63 64 36

Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Public Private

The Top 200 Institutions — Federal Research Expenditures (1999), continued Top 101–150 Institutions in Federal Research Expenditures (1999) Rockefeller University University of Tennessee — Knoxville Washington State University — Pullman University of South Florida Indiana University — Bloomington University of Massachusetts — Amherst Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge University of Nebraska — Lincoln University of Rhode Island — Kingston University of Vermont Rice University University of Alaska — Fairbanks University of Delaware US Naval Postgraduate School University of Kansas — Lawrence University of Connecticut — Health Center Rush University Medical University of South Carolina University of Dayton University of New Hampshire — Durham Syracuse University Temple University Brandeis University University of Oklahoma — Norman University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Kansas State University University of Oregon Clemson University Auburn University — Auburn University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences West Virginia University Montana State University — Bozeman University of Alabama — Huntsville University of California — Santa Cruz University of Nevada — Reno University of Idaho Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center University of Kansas Medical Center Pennsylvania State University — Hershey Medical Ctr University of Connecticut — Storrs University of Puerto Rico — Mayaguez Saint Louis University — St. Louis University of Notre Dame Oklahoma State University — Stillwater Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Northeastern University Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science Howard University New Jersey Institute of Technology State Univ. of New York Downstate Medical Center

Page 94

Federal Research x $1000

45,010 44,920 44,610 42,005 40,905 39,877 37,291 36,977 36,207 36,085 35,012 34,647 34,628 33,308 33,176 31,633 31,119 30,997 30,755 30,586 30,050 29,734 29,423 29,370 28,219 28,102 27,336 27,064 27,058 26,392 26,264 26,231 25,166 25,084 24,587 24,263 24,150 24,096 23,893 23,863 23,784 23,722 23,614 23,179 22,803 22,776 22,212 21,658 21,127 21,053

Control Rank

National Rank

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

Institutional Control

37 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 38 74 75 76 77 78 39 79 40 80 41 81 42 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 43 44 100 45 46 47 48 101 102

Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Public

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : F e d e r a l R e s e a r c h

The Top 200 Institutions — Federal Research Expenditures (1999), continued Top 151–200 Institutions in Federal Research Expenditures (1999) Florida A&M University University of Houston — University Park University of Tennessee Health Science Center Texas Tech University University of California — Riverside San Diego State University George Mason University University of Maine — Orono University of Wyoming University of Texas — El Paso University of Alabama — Tuscaloosa Loyola University Chicago MCP Hahnemann University University of Nebraska Medical Center Desert Research Institute Michigan Technological University University of Central Florida University of Arkansas — Fayetteville Florida International University University of Maryland — Baltimore County University of Louisville Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology University of Montana — Missoula Boston College University of New Orleans Georgia State University University of Southern Mississippi New York Medical College Medical College of Georgia University of Puerto Rico — Medical Sciences University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute Old Dominion University University of North Dakota — Grand Forks Lehigh University Morehouse School of Medicine Drexel University Mercer University — Macon North Carolina A&T State University Wright State University — Dayton North Dakota State University — Fargo Loma Linda University Clark Atlanta University California State University — Long Beach College of William and Mary San Jose State University Brigham Young University Eastern Virginia Medical School Catholic University of America Florida Atlantic University New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Federal Research x $1000

20,693 20,443 20,354 20,242 19,994 19,724 19,492 19,163 19,109 18,292 17,601 17,588 17,281 17,167 16,552 16,107 16,048 15,851 15,757 15,624 15,536 15,303 14,627 14,492 14,364 14,310 14,124 14,029 13,991 13,971 13,911 13,706 13,615 13,161 12,948 12,914 12,657 12,454 12,365 12,308 12,217 12,116 11,929 11,892 11,825 11,414 11,354 11,064 11,036 10,719

National Rank

Control Rank

151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200

Page 95

Institutional Control

103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 49 50 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 51 122 52 123 124 125 53 126 127 128 129 130 54 55 56 57 131 132 133 58 59 134 135 136 60 61 62 137 138

Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public

The Top 200 Institutions — Endowment Assets (2000) Top 50 Institutions in Endowment Assets (2000) Harvard University Yale University Stanford University Princeton University Massachusetts Institute of Technology Emory University Columbia University Washington University Texas A&M University University of Chicago Cornell University Rice University Northwestern University University of Michigan — Ann Arbor University of Pennsylvania University of Notre Dame Duke University Dartmouth College Vanderbilt University University of California — Berkeley University of Southern California Johns Hopkins University University of Minnesota — Twin Cities University of Virginia University of Texas — Austin Case Western Reserve University California Institute of Technology University of California — Los Angeles Brown University Rockefeller University Williams College Purdue University — West Lafayette Ohio State University — Columbus University of Rochester Wellesley College Georgia Institute of Technology Pomona College University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill University of Wisconsin — Madison University of Richmond Baylor College of Medicine Boston College New York University University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh Texas Christian University Wake Forest University University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati Swarthmore College Saint Louis University — St. Louis Boston University

Page 96

Endowment Assets x $1000

18,844,338 10,084,900 8,649,475 8,398,100 6,475,506 5,032,683 4,263,972 4,234,599 3,932,469 3,828,664 3,436,926 3,372,458 3,368,233 3,329,637 3,200,812 3,089,007 2,663,891 2,490,376 2,314,935 2,168,671 2,152,589 1,825,212 1,809,305 1,738,984 1,611,050 1,550,600 1,535,702 1,447,371 1,416,052 1,372,200 1,357,589 1,301,976 1,294,923 1,278,774 1,253,385 1,141,666 1,109,410 1,105,254 1,080,363 1,068,708 1,044,685 1,044,542 1,030,800 1,018,015 988,127 969,618 963,907 963,676 925,955 913,207

Control Rank

National Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Institutional Control

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 2 13 14 15 16 17 3 18 19 4 5 6 20 21 7 22 23 24 8 9 25 26 10 27 11 12 28 29 30 31 13 32 33 14 34 35 36

Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Private Private

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : E n d o w m e n t A s s e t s

The Top 200 Institutions — Endowment Assets (2000), continued Top 51–100 Institutions in Endowment Assets (2000) Amherst College University of California — San Francisco University of Washington — Seattle University of Delaware Southern Methodist University Smith College Grinnell College Berea College Carnegie Mellon University Syracuse University Lehigh University Pennsylvania State University — University Park Yeshiva University Georgetown University George Washington University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute University of Tulsa University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas University of Kansas — Lawrence University of Florida Carleton College Vassar College Middlebury College Trinity University Baylor University Tulane University Oberlin College University of Nebraska — Lincoln University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign Wesleyan University Macalester College Rochester Institute of Technology Tufts University Northeastern University Indiana University — Bloomington Denison University Claremont McKenna College DePauw University Bryn Mawr College Bowdoin College Bucknell University University of Miami University of Louisville Lafayette College University at Buffalo Colgate University Washington State University — Pullman Hamilton College (NY) Mount Holyoke College University of Iowa

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Endowment Assets x $1000

912,399 912,258 911,804 911,521 911,121 906,942 862,487 861,303 829,121 825,250 791,190 781,038 775,262 745,398 737,647 729,973 725,470 713,253 684,362 681,370 680,586 675,113 666,783 656,978 645,095 636,350 610,229 590,875 585,879 579,914 564,439 524,714 523,520 518,536 499,105 498,362 487,120 482,251 466,960 465,274 465,262 465,212 454,521 451,160 447,322 439,115 437,093 432,225 425,296 424,159

National Rank

Institutional Control

Control Rank

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Page 97

37 15 16 17 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 18 45 46 47 48 49 19 20 21 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 22 23 57 58 59 60 61 24 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 25 69 26 70 27 71 72 28

Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Private Public

The Top 200 Institutions — Endowment Assets (2000), continued Top 101–150 Institutions in Endowment Assets (2000) University of Oklahoma — Norman Santa Clara University Iowa State University Agnes Scott College Brandeis University Colorado College Pepperdine University Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick Thomas Jefferson University Washington and Lee University University of California — Davis Earlham College University of Houston — University Park University of Georgia College of William and Mary Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis University of Missouri — Columbia Colby College University of Alabama — Tuscaloosa University of Kentucky Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University College of the Holy Cross Regent University Trinity College (CT) Rush University Reed College Worcester Polytechnic Institute University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston Southwestern University Loyola University Chicago Davidson College Haverford College Bryn Athyn College of the New Church Wabash College University of Maryland — College Park University of Utah Loyola University New Orleans Whitman College North Carolina State University Michigan State University Howard University University of South Alabama — Mobile Wheaton College (IL) University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center West Virginia University Samford University University of Dayton Texas Tech University University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio University of California — San Diego

Page 98

Endowment Assets x $1000

417,909 411,260 410,704 408,141 406,722 405,641 402,264 400,259 400,000 399,567 395,346 392,316 390,617 388,422 382,528 381,134 379,095 373,535 370,695 370,125 368,197 368,119 366,167 361,745 347,611 346,392 343,967 342,602 341,551 338,937 336,426 329,571 323,584 321,103 319,061 317,268 315,698 313,244 312,840 310,289 308,972 306,193 302,144 300,480 299,825 298,673 297,297 293,407 293,090 292,730

Control Rank

National Rank

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 114 109 110 111 112 113 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

Institutional Control

29 73 30 74 75 76 77 31 78 79 32 80 33 34 35 36 37 81 38 39 40 82 83 84 85 86 87 41 88 89 90 91 92 93 42 43 94 95 44 45 96 46 97 47 48 98 99 49 50 51

Public Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Public Public Public

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : E n d o w m e n t A s s e t s

The Top 200 Institutions — Endowment Assets (2000), continued Top 151–200 Institutions in Endowment Assets (2000) University of Mississippi — Oxford Florida State University University of Arizona Occidental College College of the Ozarks Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Franklin & Marshall College Union College (NY) Loyola Marymount University University of South Carolina — Columbia Oregon State University Furman University Virginia Military Institute University of Tennessee — Knoxville University of Oregon Miami University — Oxford Marquette University Oregon Health Sciences University University of the South Drexel University University of Arkansas — Fayetteville University of St. Thomas (MN) University of Colorado — Boulder Auburn University — Auburn Fordham University University of South Florida Clemson University St. Lawrence University University of Alabama — Birmingham Virginia Commonwealth University University of Nebraska Medical Center Drew University Rhode Island School of Design Ohio University — Athens Spelman College Willamette University College of Wooster Babson College Arizona State University — Tempe Illinois Wesleyan University Creighton University University of Puget Sound Scripps College Illinois Institute of Technology Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science & Art University of New Mexico — Albuquerque Rhodes College (TN) Berry College University of Akron — Akron Bates College

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Endowment Assets x $1000

291,093 288,500 285,356 280,613 280,033 278,829 274,855 269,258 268,737 267,740 266,324 261,041 260,708 258,000 251,359 248,837 247,803 246,349 245,304 244,576 244,125 241,133 238,960 238,170 237,756 237,027 236,348 229,741 228,740 225,674 225,466 224,260 223,976 221,291 219,754 217,403 216,301 216,000 215,594 213,397 212,639 208,890 206,994 204,586 202,844 202,558 202,257 200,519 198,498 198,274

National Rank

Control Rank

151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200

Page 99

Institutional Control

52 53 54 100 101 102 103 104 105 55 56 106 57 58 59 60 107 61 108 109 62 110 63 64 111 65 66 112 67 68 69 113 114 70 115 116 117 118 71 119 120 121 122 123 124 72 125 126 73 127

Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Private

The Top 200 Institutions — Annual Giving (2000) Top 50 Institutions in Annual Giving (2000) Stanford University Harvard University Duke University Yale University Cornell University Johns Hopkins University Columbia University University of Pennsylvania University of Wisconsin — Madison University of California — Los Angeles University of Southern California Massachusetts Institute of Technology New York University University of Washington — Seattle University of Michigan — Ann Arbor University of California — San Francisco Northwestern University University of Texas — Austin University of Virginia University of Minnesota — Twin Cities University of Chicago Ohio State University — Columbus University of California — Berkeley Princeton University University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill University of Florida University of Utah University of Notre Dame Iowa State University Washington University Pennsylvania State University — University Park Michigan State University California Institute of Technology Dartmouth College University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas University of California — San Diego Texas A&M University Case Western Reserve University University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign Georgia Institute of Technology Emory University Indiana University — Bloomington University of Miami University of Mississippi — Oxford Vanderbilt University Brown University Georgetown University Baylor College of Medicine University of Arizona Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis

Page 100

Annual Giving x $1000

580,474 485,238 407,953 358,103 308,676 304,044 292,268 288,152 280,182 253,765 253,288 238,426 236,620 225,575 221,381 218,320 203,069 201,637 195,284 193,950 177,619 174,329 166,844 166,189 164,640 163,600 144,016 140,679 130,022 127,219 125,958 121,287 117,561 116,128 115,033 112,792 110,426 109,933 107,504 107,465 101,430 100,797 100,563 94,973 94,181 93,077 92,837 92,078 91,711 90,718

Control Rank

National Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Institutional Control

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 9 10 11 3 4 5 12 6 7 8 13 9 10 14 11 12 13 15 14 16 15 16 17 18 17 18 19 19 20 21 20 22 21 23 22 23 24 25 24 25

Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Public

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : A n n u a l G i v i n g

The Top 200 Institutions — Annual Giving (2000), continued Top 51–100 Institutions in Annual Giving (2000) University of Arkansas — Fayetteville Brigham Young University Purdue University — West Lafayette University of Iowa Clemson University University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh University of Houston — University Park University of California — Davis North Carolina State University Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick Rice University Boston University Tufts University Carnegie Mellon University Arizona State University — Tempe Florida State University Southern Methodist University Bowdoin College University of California — Irvine Tulane University University of Rochester University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center University of Kansas — Lawrence Brandeis University University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati Rockefeller University Williams College Texas Tech University Wellesley College Baylor University University of Colorado — Boulder University of Alabama — Birmingham University of Maryland — College Park Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University West Virginia University University of South Carolina — Columbia Oregon Health Sciences University University of Oklahoma — Norman Smith College Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Boston College University of Oregon University of Kentucky University of Tennessee — Knoxville University of Nebraska — Lincoln Washington State University — Pullman University of Georgia University of Delaware University of Louisville Illinois Institute of Technology

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Annual Giving x $1000

88,197 86,474 84,358 83,894 82,929 82,030 80,777 76,768 74,363 73,945 73,651 73,428 72,990 71,671 69,026 68,203 67,765 67,271 67,254 66,000 64,091 63,526 62,793 61,704 61,671 60,179 60,136 59,474 59,444 57,661 57,284 56,864 56,119 55,610 52,855 52,357 51,535 51,244 49,812 49,262 48,668 48,584 48,382 48,004 47,615 45,808 45,739 44,679 44,091 43,706

National Rank

Control Rank

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Page 101

Institutional Control

26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 27 28 29 30 35 36 31 32 37 33 34 38 39 35 40 36 37 41 38 39 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 40 41 42 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 43

Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private

The Top 200 Institutions — Annual Giving (2000), continued Top 101–150 Institutions in Annual Giving (2000) Syracuse University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Wake Forest University DePauw University Yeshiva University University of South Florida George Washington University Kansas State University Wayne State University Temple University San Diego State University Washington and Lee University University of Missouri — Columbia University of Illinois — Chicago Oklahoma State University — Stillwater University of Alabama — Tuscaloosa Connecticut College Vassar College Auburn University — Auburn Oregon State University University of Texas — Dallas College of William and Mary University of Tulsa University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston Oberlin College Santa Clara University Mount Holyoke College Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge Lehigh University Amherst College Wheaton College (IL) Loyola Marymount University University of Connecticut — Storrs Saint Louis University — St. Louis Macalester College Hillsdale College Northeastern University Thomas Jefferson University University of New Mexico — Albuquerque Pomona College Florida Atlantic University Trinity College (CT) University of Maryland — Baltimore East Carolina University University of Colorado Health Sciences Center Lafayette College Middlebury College University at Buffalo University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Virginia Commonwealth University

Page 102

Annual Giving x $1000

42,814 42,716 42,502 41,892 41,299 40,809 40,350 40,331 40,000 39,721 39,635 39,219 39,212 38,509 37,984 37,688 37,577 37,465 37,301 37,178 36,737 36,092 35,929 34,969 34,575 34,427 33,601 33,400 33,346 33,342 33,125 32,965 31,755 31,662 31,230 31,132 31,089 31,000 30,879 30,381 29,941 29,566 29,419 28,866 28,642 28,547 28,352 28,287 27,600 27,567

National Rank

Control Rank

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

Institutional Control

44 45 46 47 48 58 49 59 60 61 62 50 63 64 65 66 51 52 67 68 69 70 53 71 54 55 56 72 57 58 59 60 73 61 62 63 64 65 74 66 75 67 76 77 78 68 69 79 80 81

Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : A n n u a l G i v i n g

The Top 200 Institutions — Annual Giving (2000), continued Top 151–200 Institutions in Annual Giving (2000) University of Idaho Loma Linda University Carleton College University of Dayton University of Denver Mississippi State University University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Berea College Michigan Technological University Marquette University University of St. Thomas (MN) Rochester Institute of Technology Bryn Mawr College California Polytechnic State Univ — San Luis Obispo Drexel University University of Vermont University of California — Santa Barbara University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston Utah State University California State University — Fresno University of Hawaii — Manoa Hamilton College (NY) La Grange College University of Massachusetts — Lowell Pepperdine University Colorado State University University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey California State University — Long Beach University of Nevada — Las Vegas St. Olaf College Wesleyan University Wheaton College (MA) Hope College Colorado School of Mines Texas Christian University Bucknell University Davidson College University of Nevada — Reno Lawrence University Colgate University University of Massachusetts — Amherst Northern Arizona University Stetson University Fairfield University Claremont McKenna College Ohio Wesleyan University University at Stony Brook Loyola University Chicago Valparaiso University

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Annual Giving x $1000

27,396 27,360 27,223 27,205 27,088 26,720 26,499 26,398 25,920 25,479 25,460 25,243 24,874 24,628 24,615 24,282 24,280 24,111 23,880 23,729 23,654 22,844 22,817 22,759 22,621 22,543 22,465 22,400 22,153 22,151 22,054 22,054 21,943 21,874 21,869 21,820 21,788 21,776 21,604 21,219 21,199 21,117 21,028 20,873 20,629 20,499 20,403 20,080 19,645 19,561

Control Rank

National Rank

151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 181 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200

Page 103

Institutional Control

82 70 71 72 73 83 84 85 74 86 75 76 77 78 87 79 88 89 90 91 92 93 80 81 94 82 95 96 97 98 83 83 85 86 99 87 88 89 100 90 91 101 102 92 93 94 95 103 96 97

Public Private Private Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private

The Top 200 Institutions — National Academy Membership (2000) Top 50 Institutions in National Academy Membership (2000) Harvard University Stanford University Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of California — Berkeley Yale University California Institute of Technology University of California — San Diego University of Pennsylvania Cornell University Columbia University Princeton University University of Washington — Seattle University of Wisconsin — Madison Johns Hopkins University University of California — San Francisco University of California — Los Angeles University of Chicago University of Michigan — Ann Arbor University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign University of Texas — Austin Rockefeller University Duke University University of Minnesota — Twin Cities Washington University University of Southern California University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill University of California — Santa Barbara Northwestern University New York University University of Arizona Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick University of California — Davis University of Colorado — Boulder Case Western Reserve University Carnegie Mellon University Georgia Institute of Technology Pennsylvania State University — University Park University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas University of Virginia University of California — Irvine University of Rochester Rice University University of Utah University of Iowa University of Maryland — College Park Brown University Purdue University — West Lafayette University of Florida University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh Dartmouth College North Carolina State University Texas A&M University

Page 104

Number of Members

National Rank

247 239 236 190 101 93 91 87 82 75 73 71 68 65 64 61 60 60 53 52 43 40 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 27 26 25 24 23 22 22 22 22 22 21 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 17 17 15 15 15

Control Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 35 35 35 40 41 42 42 44 44 46 46 46 46 50 50 50

Institutional Control

1 2 3 1 4 5 2 6 7 8 9 3 4 10 5 6 11 7 8 9 12 13 10 14 15 11 12 16 17 13 14 15 16 18 19 17 17 17 17 21 20 21 22 23 23 22 25 25 25 23 28 28

Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y

The Top 200 Institutions — National Academy Membership (2000), continued Top 53–96 Institutions National Academy Members (2000) Boston University Ohio State University — Columbus Baylor College of Medicine Brandeis University University at Stony Brook Mount Sinai School of Medicine Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Vanderbilt University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Indiana University — Bloomington University of California — Santa Cruz University of Delaware University of Massachusetts — Amherst City University of New York — City College Emory University University of Alabama — Birmingham University of Maryland — Baltimore Yeshiva University University of Georgia Iowa State University Lehigh University University of Colorado Health Sciences Center University of Houston — University Park University of Kansas — Lawrence Washington State University — Pullman Colorado State University Florida State University Michigan State University Thomas Jefferson University University of California — Riverside Georgetown University Howard University Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis Oregon State University Polytechnic University Tufts University University at Buffalo University of Hawaii — Manoa University of Illinois — Chicago University of Missouri — Columbia University of Oregon University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution George Washington University Oregon Health Sciences University University of Kentucky University of New Mexico — Albuquerque

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Number of Members

Control Rank

National Rank

14 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4

53 54 55 55 55 58 58 58 58 62 62 62 62 66 66 66 66 66 71 72 72 72 72 72 72 78 78 78 78 78 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 96 96 96 96

Page 105

Institutional Control

24 30 25 25 31 27 27 27 32 33 33 33 33 37 30 37 37 30 40 41 32 41 41 41 41 46 46 46 33 46 34 34 50 50 34 34 50 50 50 50 50 50 34 39 58 58 58

Private Public Private Private Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public

The Top 200 Institutions — National Academy Membership (2000), continued Institutions with at least 1 National Academy Member (2000)

Number of Members

National Rank

Control Rank

Institutional Control

Arizona State University — Tempe

3

100

61

Public

Colorado School of Mines

3

100

61

Public

Drexel University

3

100

40

Private

Illinois Institute of Technology

3

100

40

Private

Oklahoma State University — Stillwater

3

100

61

Public

Pennsylvania State University — Hershey Medical Ctr

3

100

61

Public

Tulane University

3

100

40

Private

University of Connecticut — Health Center

3

100

61

Public

University of Oklahoma — Norman

3

100

61

Public

University of South Florida

3

100

61

Public

University of Vermont

3

100

61

Public

Wayne State University

3

100

61

Public

Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science

2

112

43

Private

Clark University (MA)

2

112

43

Private

College of William and Mary

2

112

70

Public

Florida Atlantic University

2

112

70

Public

Medical University of South Carolina

2

112

70

Public

Meharry Medical College

2

112

43

Private

Rush University

2

112

43

Private

Touro College

2

112

43

Private

University of Arkansas — Fayetteville

2

112

70

Public

University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati

2

112

70

Public

University of Massachusetts — Boston

2

112

70

Public Public

University of Massachusetts Medical Sch — Worcester

2

112

70

University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey

2

112

70

Public

University of Nebraska — Lincoln

2

112

70

Public

University of Nebraska Medical Center

2

112

70

Public

University of Nevada — Reno

2

112

70

Public

University of Notre Dame

2

112

43

Private

University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

2

112

70

Public

University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston

2

112

70

Public

Wake Forest University

2

112

43

Private

Becker College — Worcester

1

132

50

Private

Binghamton University

1

132

83

Public

Boston College

1

132

50

Private

Bryn Mawr College

1

132

50

Private

Butler University

1

132

50

Private

California State University — Fullerton

1

132

83

Public

Catholic University of America

1

132

50

Private

City University of NY — Graduate Sch and University Ctr

1

132

83

Public

Clark Atlanta University

1

132

50

Private

Clemson University

1

132

83

Public

Duquesne University

1

132

50

Private

Fordham University

1

132

50

Private

Page 106

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y

The Top 200 Institutions — National Academy Membership (2000), continued Institutions with at least 1 National Academy Member (2000)

Number of Members

Control Rank

National Rank

Institutional Control

George Mason University

1

132

83

Public

Haverford College

1

132

50

Private

Kettering University

1

132

50

Private

Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge

1

132

83

Public

Manhattan College

1

132

50

Private

Manhattanville College

1

132

50

Private

Marshall University

1

132

83

Public

MCP Hahnemann University

1

132

50

Private

Medical College of Wisconsin

1

132

50

Private

Michigan Technological University

1

132

83

Public

Morehouse School of Medicine

1

132

50

Private

New York Medical College

1

132

50

Private

Ponce School of Medicine

1

132

50

Private

Saint Louis University — St. Louis

1

132

50

Private

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology

1

132

83

Public

Southern Methodist University

1

132

50

Private

Spelman College

1

132

50

Private

State Univ. of New York Downstate Medical Center

1

132

83

Public

Syracuse University

1

132

50

Private

Temple University

1

132

83

Public

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

1

132

83

Public

Union College (NY)

1

132

50

Private

University of Akron — Akron

1

132

83

Public

University of Arkansas — Little Rock

1

132

83

Public

University of Colorado — Denver

1

132

83

Public

University of Connecticut — Storrs

1

132

83

Public

University of Dayton

1

132

50

Private

University of Louisville

1

132

83

Public

University of Miami

1

132

50

Private

University of Minnesota — Duluth

1

132

83

Public

University of Rhode Island — Kingston

1

132

83

Public

University of South Carolina — Columbia

1

132

83

Public

University of Tennessee — Knoxville

1

132

83

Public

University of Texas — Arlington

1

132

83

Public

University of Texas — Dallas

1

132

83

Public

University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio

1

132

83

Public

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

1

132

83

Public

University of the Pacific

1

132

50

Private

University of Tulsa

1

132

50

Private

University of Wyoming

1

132

83

Public

US Naval Postgraduate School

1

132

83

Public

Virginia Commonwealth University

1

132

83

Public

Wright State University — Dayton

1

132

83

Public

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 107

The Top 200 Institutions — Faculty Awards (2000) Top 50 Institutions in Faculty Awards (2000) Harvard University University of California — Berkeley Stanford University University of California — Los Angeles University of Pennsylvania Columbia University University of Washington — Seattle Johns Hopkins University University of Chicago Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign Cornell University University of Michigan — Ann Arbor Duke University University of California — San Francisco University of Minnesota — Twin Cities Washington University University of California — San Diego University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill Princeton University University of Texas — Austin Yale University Northwestern University University of Florida University of Virginia University of Wisconsin — Madison New York University Boston University Ohio State University — Columbus Purdue University — West Lafayette Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick University of California — Davis University of Southern California University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas University of Utah University of Arizona Vanderbilt University University at Stony Brook Pennsylvania State University — University Park University at Buffalo University of Illinois — Chicago Georgia Institute of Technology Michigan State University University of Alabama — Birmingham University of Colorado — Boulder Brandeis University California Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University North Carolina State University University of Kansas — Lawrence University of Kentucky

Page 108

Number of Awards

National Rank

61 59 54 51 42 38 37 35 35 33 33 32 32 31 31 31 30 29 29 28 28 28 27 27 25 25 22 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14

Control Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 10 12 12 14 14 14 17 18 18 20 20 20 23 23 25 25 27 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 36 36 38 39 39 39 42 42 42 42 46 46 46 46 46 46

Institutional Control

1 1 2 2 3 4 3 5 5 7 4 8 5 9 6 6 10 8 8 11 10 11 13 11 12 12 14 15 14 14 14 14 16 14 14 20 17 21 22 22 22 25 25 25 25 18 18 18 29 29 29

Private Public Private Public Private Private Public Private Private Private Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : F a c u l t y A w a r d s

The Top 200 Institutions — Faculty Awards (2000), continued Institutions with 6 to 13 Faculty Awards (2000) Baylor College of Medicine College of William and Mary Dartmouth College Tufts University University of Massachusetts — Amherst University of Notre Dame University of California — Irvine University of Maryland — College Park University of Rochester Arizona State University — Tempe Brown University Indiana University — Bloomington Oregon Health Sciences University Texas A&M University University of Georgia University of Iowa University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh Emory University Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge Rockefeller University University of South Carolina — Columbia Tulane University University of California — Santa Barbara University of Colorado Health Sciences Center University of Delaware University of Massachusetts Medical Sch — Worcester University of Missouri — Columbia University of South Florida Washington State University — Pullman Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rice University University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati University of Connecticut — Storrs New Mexico State University — Las Cruces San Diego State University Syracuse University University of California — Santa Cruz University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio University of Vermont Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Boston College Case Western Reserve University City University of New York — Hunter College Clemson University Georgetown University Iowa State University Oklahoma State University — Stillwater Oregon State University Pomona College University of Houston — University Park

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Number of Awards

Control Rank

National Rank

13 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

52 52 52 52 52 52 58 58 58 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 69 69 69 69 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 81 81 81 81 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92

Page 109

Institutional Control

21 32 21 21 32 21 34 34 25 36 26 36 36 36 36 36 36 27 43 27 43 29 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 30 30 52 52 54 54 32 54 54 54 54 33 33 60 60 33 60 60 60 33 60

Private Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public

The Top 200 Institutions — Faculty Awards (2000), continued Institutions with 4 to 6 Faculty Awards (2000) University of Maryland — Baltimore County University of Massachusetts — Boston University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey University of New Hampshire — Durham University of New Mexico — Albuquerque University of Tennessee — Knoxville University of Wisconsin — Milwaukee Wayne State University Wesleyan University American University Colorado State University Drexel University Hofstra University Montana State University — Bozeman Smith College Southern Illinois University — Carbondale Temple University Texas Tech University University of Akron — Akron University of Kansas Medical Center University of Maine — Orono University of Maryland — Baltimore University of Nebraska — Lincoln University of North Carolina — Charlotte University of Oregon University of Texas — San Antonio Western Washington University Worcester Polytechnic Institute Yeshiva University Bard College Barnard College Binghamton University Brigham Young University City University of New York — City College Colorado School of Mines Florida Atlantic University Grand Valley State University Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis Lehigh University Loyola University Chicago Marquette University New School University Northeastern University Pennsylvania State University — Hershey Medical Ctr San Francisco State University Swarthmore College University of Alabama — Tuscaloosa University of Hawaii — Manoa University of Nevada — Reno University of North Dakota — Grand Forks

Page 110

Number of Awards

National Rank

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Control Rank

92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131

Institutional Control

60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 33 38 74 38 38 74 38 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 38 38 44 44 88 44 88 88 88 88 88 44 44 44 44 44 88 88 44 88 88 88 88

Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Public

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : F a c u l t y A w a r d s

The Top 200 Institutions — Faculty Awards (2000), continued Institutions with at least 3 Faculty Awards (2000) University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center University of Texas — Pan American University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston Virginia Commonwealth University Wellesley College Williams College Auburn University — Auburn Bennington College California State University — Bakersfield Catholic University of America Cleveland State University Colgate University Connecticut College DePaul University Duquesne University George Mason University Georgia State University Ithaca College James Madison University Lafayette College Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Michigan Technological University Middlebury College Mississippi State University Mount Holyoke College Mount Sinai School of Medicine Ohio University — Athens Pacific Lutheran University San Jose State University Skidmore College South Dakota School of Mines and Technology Union College (NY) University of California — Riverside University of Colorado — Colorado Springs University of Connecticut — Health Center University of Memphis University of Miami University of Nebraska — Omaha University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Nevada — Las Vegas University of Rhode Island — Kingston University of Southern Maine University of Toledo University of Tulsa University of Wisconsin — Parkside University of Wyoming Wright State University — Dayton

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Number of Awards

Control Rank

National Rank

4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

131 131 131 131 131 131 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158

Page 111

Institutional Control

88 88 88 88 44 44 104 55 104 55 104 55 55 55 55 104 104 55 104 55 104 104 55 104 55 55 104 55 104 55 104 55 104 104 104 104 55 104 104 104 104 104 104 55 104 104 104

Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public

The Top 200 Institutions — Doctorates Awarded (2000) Top 50 Institutions in Doctorate Degrees Awarded (2000) University of California — Berkeley University of Wisconsin — Madison University of Texas — Austin University of Michigan — Ann Arbor Ohio State University — Columbus University of California — Los Angeles University of Minnesota — Twin Cities Harvard University University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign Stanford University Nova Southeastern University University of Florida Pennsylvania State University — University Park Texas A&M University University of Washington — Seattle University of Southern California Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cornell University Purdue University — West Lafayette Columbia University University of Maryland — College Park Michigan State University University of Pennsylvania University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill Indiana University — Bloomington University of Arizona New York University University of Chicago Rutgers the State University of New Jersey — New Brunswick University of California — Davis University of Georgia Johns Hopkins University University of Virginia Yale University Northwestern University University of Iowa North Carolina State University University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University University at Buffalo University of California — San Diego Arizona State University — Tempe University of Tennessee — Knoxville City University of NY — Graduate Schl and University Ctr Princeton University University of Massachusetts — Amherst Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge University of Connecticut — Storrs Boston University University of Colorado — Boulder

Page 112

Number of Degrees

National Rank

756 729 659 629 620 606 604 602 597 589 587 516 513 490 486 481 475 468 468 461 461 444 427 425 409 405 402 391 371 357 352 351 343 334 321 317 316 316 309 303 294 286 286 280 279 276 275 275 274 266

Control Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 20 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 37 39 40 41 42 42 44 45 46 47 47 49 50

Institutional Control

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 8 2 3 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 13 7 14 15 8 16 17 18 9 10 19 20 21 11 22 12 13 23 24 24 26 27 28 29 29 31 14 32 33 33 15 35

Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : D o c t o r a t e s A w a r d e d

The Top 200 Institutions — Doctorates Awarded (2000), continued Top 51–99 Institutions in Doctorate Degrees Awarded (2000) Florida State University Temple University University of Missouri — Columbia University of Nebraska — Lincoln University of Kentucky University of Kansas — Lawrence University of South Carolina — Columbia University at Stony Brook Iowa State University University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati George Washington University University of California — Santa Barbara Duke University Georgia Institute of Technology Wayne State University University of Utah University of Rochester University of Houston — University Park Case Western Reserve University University of California — Irvine University of Illinois — Chicago Washington University Union Institute Vanderbilt University Auburn University — Auburn Oklahoma State University — Stillwater University of New Mexico — Albuquerque Fuller Theological Seminary in California Colorado State University Teachers College at Columbia University University of Miami University of Sarasota University of Oklahoma — Norman University of Delaware Loyola University Chicago Emory University University of North Texas Oregon State University Kent State University — Kent University at Albany University of Hawaii — Manoa Carnegie Mellon University University of Alabama — Tuscaloosa Brown University Syracuse University University of Notre Dame Texas Tech University University of Oregon George Mason University Kansas State University West Virginia University

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Number of Degrees

Control Rank

National Rank

263 263 256 251 249 246 246 244 238 238 236 232 230 230 222 215 211 204 202 202 201 199 192 190 186 185 184 182 180 176 176 171 167 164 163 160 160 158 156 155 153 152 150 149 147 147 141 138 132 132 132

51 51 53 54 55 56 56 58 59 59 61 62 63 63 65 66 67 68 69 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 80 82 83 84 85 86 86 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 95 97 98 99 99 99

Page 113

Institutional Control

36 36 38 39 40 41 41 43 44 44 16 46 17 47 48 49 18 50 19 51 52 20 21 22 53 54 55 23 56 24 24 26 57 58 27 28 59 60 61 62 63 29 64 30 31 31 65 66 67 67 67

Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public

The Top 200 Institutions — Doctorates Awarded (2000), continued Top 102–150 Institutions in Doctorate Degrees Awarded (2000) University of South Florida Mississippi State University California Institute of Technology Tulane University Yeshiva University University of Alabama — Birmingham California School of Professional Psych — Los Angeles Fielding Institute Saint Louis University — St. Louis Howard University United Theological Seminary Ohio University — Athens Southern Illinois University — Carbondale Washington State University — Pullman Boston College Clemson University Rice University University of California — Riverside University of Akron — Akron University of Denver Virginia Commonwealth University Brandeis University California School of Professional Psych — Alameda University of Memphis University of Southern Mississippi Georgetown University Georgia State University Northern Illinois University Claremont Graduate University Binghamton University Tufts University Walden University Fordham University Bowling Green State University — Bowling Green Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Illinois School of Professional Psychology — Chicago Texas Woman’s University University of California — Santa Cruz University of North Carolina — Greensboro University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston University of Arkansas — Fayetteville University of Toledo University of Nevada — Reno University of Rhode Island — Kingston Lehigh University Catholic University of America Duquesne University University of Mississippi — Oxford University of Idaho

Page 114

Number of Degrees

National Rank

131 128 127 126 126 125 123 123 123 121 121 120 119 118 116 116 115 115 114 114 112 111 111 109 108 107 107 105 101 100 100 98 96 93 93 90 90 90 88 87 86 85 84 84 83 81 81 80 79

Control Rank

102 103 104 105 105 107 108 108 108 111 111 113 114 115 116 116 118 118 120 120 122 123 123 125 126 127 127 129 130 131 131 133 134 135 135 137 137 137 140 141 142 143 144 144 146 147 147 149 150

Institutional Control

70 71 33 34 34 72 36 36 36 39 39 73 74 75 41 76 42 77 78 43 79 44 44 80 81 46 82 83 47 84 48 49 50 85 51 52 86 86 88 89 90 91 92 92 53 54 54 94 95

Public Public Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : D o c t o r a t e A w a r d e d

The Top 200 Institutions — Doctorates Awarded (2000), continued Top 151–196 Institutions in Doctorate Degrees Awarded (2000) Illinois Institute of Technology Pepperdine University University of Texas — Arlington University of Wisconsin — Milwaukee University of California — San Francisco New Mexico State University — Las Cruces Northeastern University University of Louisville University of San Francisco University of Northern Colorado Indiana University of Pennsylvania — Indiana University of Maryland — Baltimore University of Wyoming Widener University — Chester Creighton University University of Texas — Dallas Utah State University University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey University of La Verne Old Dominion University University of Central Florida Ball State University Brigham Young University College of William and Mary Indiana State University University of Missouri — Kansas City University of New Orleans Trinity Theological Seminary — Trinity College Baylor College of Medicine University of South Dakota Trinity International University California School of Professional Psych — San Diego Florida International University University of Vermont Baylor University Biola University California School of Professional Psych — Fresno Carlos Albizu University — Miami Marquette University Rutgers the State University of New Jersey — Newark Ryokan College University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas Western Michigan University Southern California University for Prof Studies New School University American University New Jersey Institute of Technology Northern Arizona University University of Massachusetts — Lowell University of Puerto Rico — Rio Piedras

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Number of Degrees

Control Rank

National Rank

78 78 78 78 77 76 76 76 75 74 73 73 73 73 71 71 71 69 67 66 66 65 64 64 63 63 63 62 61 61 59 58 58 58 57 57 56 56 56 56 56 55 55 54 53 52 52 52 52 52

151 151 151 151 155 156 156 156 159 160 161 161 161 161 165 165 165 168 169 170 170 172 173 173 175 175 175 178 179 179 181 182 182 182 185 185 187 187 187 187 187 192 192 194 195 196 196 196 196 196

Page 115

Institutional Control

56 56 96 96 98 99 58 99 59 101 102 102 102 60 61 105 105 107 62 108 108 110 63 111 112 112 112 64 65 115 66 67 116 116 68 68 70 70 70 118 70 119 119 74 75 76 121 121 121 121

Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public

The Top 200 Institutions — Postdoctoral Appointees (1999) Top 50 Institutions in Postdoctoral Appointees (1999) Harvard University Stanford University Johns Hopkins University University of California — San Francisco University of Washington — Seattle University of California — San Diego University of California — Berkeley University of Pennsylvania University of California — Los Angeles University of Michigan — Ann Arbor Cornell University Washington University Duke University University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill University of Southern California University of Minnesota — Twin Cities Massachusetts Institute of Technology California Institute of Technology University of Arizona University of Wisconsin — Madison University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh Vanderbilt University University at Stony Brook Yeshiva University Baylor College of Medicine University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Columbia University Case Western Reserve University University of Chicago University of Florida University of Virginia University of California — Irvine Mayo Graduate School Princeton University University of Utah New York University University of Colorado Health Sciences Center University of Alabama — Birmingham University of Iowa Rockefeller University University of Colorado — Boulder University of Rochester Texas A&M University Ohio State University — Columbus University of Illinois — Chicago University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston Michigan State University Colorado State University Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis Northwestern University

Page 116

Number of Postdocs

3291 1242 1239 1117 1057 968 933 917 851 728 607 582 571 568 558 518 498 497 451 440 432 406 400 400 394 392 352 349 348 344 339 324 315 315 295 293 285 280 279 275 274 268 267 264 264 263 258 255 255 249

National Rank

Control Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 44 46 47 48 48 50

Institutional Control

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 10 9 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 17 17 19 18 19 20 20 21 21 22 23 23 25 26 27 27 22

Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Private Private Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Private Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : P o s t d o c s

The Top 200 Institutions — Postdoctoral Appointees (1999), continued Top 51–99 Institutions in Postdoctoral Appointees (1999) Thomas Jefferson University Pennsylvania State University — University Park University at Buffalo University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign University of Texas — Austin Tufts University University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas Purdue University — West Lafayette University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati University of Maryland — College Park University of Massachusetts Medical Sch — Worcester Yale University University of California — Davis North Carolina State University Virginia Commonwealth University Emory University Brown University University of Kentucky Medical University of South Carolina Boston University Iowa State University University of California — Riverside University of Georgia University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston Washington State University — Pullman University of California — Santa Barbara University of Missouri — Columbia Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick Carnegie Mellon University Indiana University — Bloomington University of Massachusetts — Amherst University of Maryland — Baltimore University of Connecticut — Health Center University of Miami Wayne State University University of Kansas — Lawrence University of Delaware University of California — Santa Cruz Rice University Dartmouth College Temple University University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey University of Nebraska — Lincoln MCP Hahnemann University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University University of Tennessee — Knoxville University of Oregon University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio Brandeis University City University of NY — Graduate Sch and University Ctr

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Number of Postdocs

Control Rank

National Rank

247 246 246 246 246 243 229 228 224 220 214 206 204 203 203 200 187 186 185 183 179 179 179 170 163 158 152 151 144 143 143 140 139 138 135 130 129 120 118 115 113 112 110 108 108 107 106 102 100 100

51 52 52 52 52 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 64 66 67 68 69 70 71 71 71 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 80 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 94 96 97 98 99 99

Page 117

Institutional Control

23 29 29 29 29 24 33 34 35 36 37 25 38 39 39 26 27 41 42 28 43 43 43 46 47 48 49 50 29 51 51 53 54 30 55 56 57 58 31 32 59 60 61 33 62 63 64 65 34 66

Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Public

The Top 200 Institutions — Postdoctoral Appointees (1999), continued Top 101–149 Institutions in Postdoctoral Appointees (1999) Florida State University University of Notre Dame Wake Forest University Medical College of Wisconsin University of New Mexico — Albuquerque Kansas State University Texas Tech University Oregon State University Oregon Health Sciences University University of Louisville University of South Carolina — Columbia Arizona State University — Tempe Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Montana State University — Bozeman University of Vermont Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge Medical College of Georgia Georgetown University University of Oklahoma — Norman University of Arkansas — Fayetteville Drexel University Tulane University University of Houston — University Park Loma Linda University University of South Florida University of Connecticut — Storrs Loyola University Chicago University of Akron — Akron University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center University of Missouri — Kansas City University of Tennessee Health Science Center University of Hawaii — Manoa University of Alabama — Tuscaloosa University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Wyoming Pennsylvania State University — Hershey Medical Ctr George Washington University University of Kansas Medical Center Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences State Univ. of New York Downstate Medical Center Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Georgia State University University of Maryland — Baltimore County University of North Texas University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences University of Rhode Island — Kingston Medical College of Ohio Saint Louis University — St. Louis North Dakota State University — Fargo Syracuse University

Page 118

Number of Postdocs

National Rank

99 96 96 94 92 88 88 85 84 83 82 75 74 74 74 72 72 70 68 67 65 64 64 63 62 59 58 57 57 56 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 50 49 47 46 45 45 44 42 39 38 38 37 37

Control Rank

101 102 102 104 105 106 106 108 109 110 111 112 113 113 113 116 116 118 119 120 121 122 122 124 125 126 127 128 128 130 130 132 133 134 135 136 137 137 139 140 141 142 142 144 145 146 147 147 149 149

Institutional Control

67 35 35 37 68 69 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 76 76 79 79 38 81 82 39 40 83 41 84 85 42 86 86 88 88 90 91 92 93 94 43 95 96 97 44 98 98 100 101 102 103 45 104 46

Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Private

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : P o s t d o c s

The Top 200 Institutions — Postdoctoral Appointees (1999), continued Top 151–199 Institutions in Postdoctoral Appointees (1999) Boston College New York Medical College Rutgers the State University of NJ — Newark Oklahoma State University — Stillwater Clarkson University Lehigh University Ohio University — Athens Auburn University — Auburn Howard University University of New Orleans Brigham Young University East Carolina University Texas A&M University System Health Sciences Center University of Idaho University of Missouri — St. Louis University of Texas — Dallas Worcester Polytechnic Institute Albany Medical College University of Toledo Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Institute of Paper Science and Technology Northeastern University Morehouse School of Medicine Polytechnic University Rush University Utah State University Mississippi State University Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology University of Maine — Orono University of South Alabama — Mobile Finch University of Health Science — Chicago Med School State Univ. of New York Upstate Medical University University of Mississippi — Oxford University of Mississippi Medical Center Old Dominion University University of Missouri — Rolla University of Southern Mississippi Illinois Institute of Technology Wesleyan University Meharry Medical College New Mexico State University — Las Cruces Clemson University College of William and Mary Marquette University University of Denver University of Memphis University of Nevada — Las Vegas University of North Texas Health Science Ctr — Fort Worth Colorado School of Mines Kent State University — Kent University at Albany

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Number of Postdocs

Control Rank

National Rank

36 36 36 35 34 34 34 33 33 33 32 31 31 31 30 30 29 27 27 27 26 26 25 25 25 25 24 24 24 23 22 22 22 21 20 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 15 15 15

151 151 151 154 155 155 155 158 158 158 161 162 162 162 165 165 167 168 168 168 171 171 173 173 173 173 177 177 177 180 181 181 181 184 185 185 185 188 188 190 190 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 199 199 199

Page 119

Institutional Control

47 47 105 106 49 49 107 108 51 108 52 110 110 110 113 113 53 54 115 54 56 56 58 58 58 116 117 61 117 119 62 120 120 122 123 123 123 63 63 65 126 127 127 66 66 127 127 127 132 132 132

Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Public

The Top 200 Institutions — SAT Scores (1999) Top 50 Institutions in Median SAT Score (1999) California Institute of Technology Harvard University Harvey Mudd College Massachusetts Institute of Technology Yale University Stanford University Princeton University Dartmouth College Pomona College Swarthmore College Rice University Williams College Amherst College Duke University University of Pennsylvania Brown University University of Chicago Johns Hopkins University Middlebury College Carleton College Webb Institute Columbia University Northwestern University Carnegie Mellon University Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science & Art Cornell University Haverford College Wesleyan University Bowdoin College Washington University Claremont McKenna College Georgetown University Washington and Lee University Wellesley College University of Notre Dame Emory University Reed College Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Tufts University Vassar College Grinnell College Oberlin College St. John’s College (MD) Bates College Case Western Reserve University Macalester College New York University Brandeis University College of William and Mary Georgia Institute of Technology University of Rochester

Page 120

Median SAT Score

National Rank

1515 1495 1480 1475 1465 1455 1450 1440 1425 1418 1415 1405 1400 1400 1400 1390 1390 1385 1385 1375 1375 1370 1370 1365 1365 1365 1365 1365 1355 1355 1350 1350 1350 1350 1345 1340 1340 1340 1340 1340 1335 1335 1335 1330 1330 1330 1325 1320 1320 1320 1320

Control Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 13 16 16 18 18 20 20 22 22 24 24 24 24 24 29 29 31 31 31 31 35 36 36 36 36 36 41 41 41 44 44 44 47 48 48 48 48

Institutional Control

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 13 16 16 18 18 20 20 22 22 24 24 24 24 24 29 29 31 31 31 31 35 36 36 36 36 36 41 41 41 44 44 44 47 48 1 1 48

Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : S AT S c o r e s

The Top 200 Institutions — SAT Scores (1999), continued Top 52–98 Institutions in Median SAT Score (1999) Barnard College Davidson College Illinois Institute of Technology University of California — Berkeley Wheaton College (IL) Whitman College St. John’s College (NM) Stevens Institute of Technology University of Virginia US Naval Academy Vanderbilt University Colby College Bryn Mawr College Colgate University Wake Forest University University of Richmond Rhodes College (TN) Tulane University Boston College University of California — Los Angeles Smith College Lawrence University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Thomas Aquinas College US Air Force Academy Boston University Colorado College Trinity College (CT) Trinity University University of Michigan — Ann Arbor US Merchant Marine Academy Worcester Polytechnic Institute Connecticut College Franklin & Marshall College Grove City College Hampshire College University of Florida University of Southern California Centre College of Kentucky Kalamazoo College Scripps College University of Missouri — Rolla Hendrix College St. Olaf College University of Evansville US Military Academy Hamilton College (NY) Lafayette College Pepperdine University University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign US Coast Guard Academy

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Median SAT Score

Control Rank

National Rank

1315 1315 1315 1315 1315 1315 1310 1310 1310 1310 1310 1305 1300 1300 1300 1295 1290 1290 1285 1285 1280 1275 1275 1275 1275 1270 1270 1270 1270 1270 1270 1270 1265 1265 1265 1265 1265 1265 1260 1260 1260 1260 1255 1255 1255 1255 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250

52 52 52 52 52 52 58 58 58 58 58 63 64 64 64 67 68 68 70 70 72 73 73 73 73 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 84 84 84 84 84 84 90 90 90 90 94 94 94 94 98 98 98 98 98

Page 121

Institutional Control

50 50 50 3 50 50 55 55 4 4 55 58 59 59 59 62 63 63 65 6 66 67 67 67 7 70 70 70 70 8 8 70 75 75 75 75 10 75 80 80 80 11 83 83 83 12 86 86 86 13 13

Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Public Public

The Top 200 Institutions — SAT Scores (1999), continued Top 103–146 Institutions in Median SAT Score (1999) Lehigh University Beloit College Bucknell University Furman University Lewis & Clark College Manhattanville College University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill Colorado School of Mines Illinois Wesleyan University Mount Holyoke College Southwestern University St. Mary’s College of Maryland University of Maryland — College Park University of Puget Sound Christendom College George Washington University College of New Jersey Gustavus Adolphus College Truman State University Union College (NY) College of the Atlantic University of the South University of Dallas Bard College Brigham Young University College of the Holy Cross Hillsdale College Ohio Wesleyan University Ripon College Agnes Scott College Austin College Denison University Drew University Kettering University Knox College University of Tulsa Villanova University Iowa State University New School University Occidental College Sarah Lawrence College Skidmore College University of Puerto Rico — Bayamon Binghamton University DePauw University Loyola College Mary Washington College Oglethorpe University Pennsylvania State University — University Park Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick

Page 122

Median SAT Score

National Rank

1249 1245 1245 1245 1245 1245 1245 1240 1240 1240 1240 1240 1240 1240 1235 1235 1230 1230 1230 1230 1225 1225 1223 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 1220 1215 1215 1215 1215 1215 1215 1215 1215 1210 1210 1210 1210 1210 1210 1205 1205 1205 1205 1205 1205 1205

Control Rank

103 104 104 104 104 104 104 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 117 117 119 119 119 119 123 123 125 126 126 126 126 126 126 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 140 140 140 140 140 140 146 146 146 146 146 146 146

Institutional Control

89 90 90 90 90 90 15 16 95 95 95 16 16 95 99 99 19 101 19 101 103 103 105 106 106 106 106 106 106 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 21 120 120 120 120 21 23 124 124 23 124 23 23

Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Public Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Public Public

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : S AT S c o r e s

The Top 200 Institutions — SAT Scores (1999), continued Top 153–198 Institutions in Median SAT Score (1999) Babson College Dickinson College Florida Memorial College Hope College Luther College Michigan Technological University Polytechnic University Syracuse University University of Minnesota — Morris University of Missouri — Columbia Wheaton College (MA) Allegheny College State Univ. of New York — College at Geneseo University of Georgia University of Texas — Austin University of Wisconsin — Madison Westmont College Willamette University Hamline University College of Wooster Gordon College LeTourneau University Marlboro College Miami University — Oxford Santa Clara University University of Iowa University of Texas — Dallas Valparaiso University Yeshiva University Birmingham Southern College University of California — Santa Barbara University of Minnesota — Twin Cities American University Augustana College (IL) Bradley University Calvin College Cedarville University Clarkson University Goucher College New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Rochester Institute of Technology St. John’s University (MN) Texas A&M University Transylvania University University of California — San Diego Gettysburg College Loyola University New Orleans Millsaps College North Carolina State University Pitzer College Principia College

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Median SAT Score

Control Rank

National Rank

1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1195 1195 1195 1195 1195 1195 1195 1192 1190 1190 1190 1190 1190 1190 1190 1190 1190 1190 1185 1185 1185 1180 1180 1180 1180 1180 1180 1180 1180 1180 1180 1180 1180 1180 1175 1175 1175 1175 1175 1175

153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 171 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 182 182 182 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 185 198 198 198 198 198 198

Page 123

Institutional Control

127 127 127 127 127 27 127 127 27 27 127 135 30 30 30 30 135 135 138 139 139 139 139 34 139 34 34 139 139 146 37 37 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 39 147 147 39 147 39 157 157 157 42 157 157

Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Public Private Private Private Public Private Private

The Top 200 Institutions — National Merit Scholars (2000) Top 50 Institutions in Merit and Achievement Scholars (2000) Harvard University University of Texas — Austin University of California — Berkeley Stanford University Yale University University of Florida Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of Southern California Rice University Washington University University of Chicago University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill New York University Texas A&M University University of Oklahoma — Norman Iowa State University Princeton University Arizona State University — Tempe Ohio State University — Columbus University of Kansas — Lawrence Brigham Young University Georgia Institute of Technology Duke University Vanderbilt University Northwestern University University of California — Los Angeles University of Pennsylvania Carleton College Brown University University of Alabama — Tuscaloosa California Institute of Technology Dartmouth College Case Western Reserve University Johns Hopkins University Florida A&M University Harvey Mudd College Emory University Michigan State University Baylor University Boston University University of Kentucky Oberlin College University of Michigan — Ann Arbor Columbia University Florida State University Purdue University — West Lafayette Cornell University University of California — San Diego University of Virginia Wheaton College (IL)

Page 124

Number of Scholars

National Rank

444 250 249 244 220 194 173 170 168 164 160 151 149 146 145 125 122 119 116 116 115 115 107 107 92 87 86 82 76 74 71 71 68 65 62 62 61 61 60 60 60 58 55 54 54 54 53 53 53 52

Control Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 21 21 23 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 33 34 35 35 37 37 39 39 39 42 43 44 44 44 47 47 47 50

Institutional Control

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 9 5 6 7 10 8 9 9 11 11 12 12 14 12 15 16 17 13 18 18 20 21 14 22 23 15 24 24 16 26 17 27 18 18 28 20 20 29

Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Public Public Private

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : N a t i o n a l M e r i t S c h o l a r s

The Top 200 Institutions — National Merit Scholars (2000), continued Top 51–102 Institutions in Merit and Achievement Scholars (2000) University of Georgia Macalester College University of Notre Dame Howard University University of Maryland — College Park University of South Carolina — Columbia University of Washington — Seattle University of Wisconsin — Madison Tulane University University of Arizona University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign St. Olaf College University of Minnesota — Twin Cities Georgetown University Auburn University — Auburn Grinnell College Tufts University Mississippi State University University of Tennessee — Knoxville Washington and Lee University Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge Swarthmore College University of Arkansas — Fayetteville Brandeis University Miami University — Oxford University of Central Florida University of Iowa Williams College University of Mississippi — Oxford University of Missouri — Columbia Clemson University University of Utah Furman University Marquette University Kenyon College Pennsylvania State University — University Park Pomona College University of Nebraska — Lincoln University of Tulsa Wake Forest University Amherst College University of Houston — University Park University of Texas — Dallas Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University University of California — Davis Bowdoin College Claremont McKenna College Whitman College North Carolina State University Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick University of Rochester Calvin College Rhodes College (TN) University of Miami

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Number of Scholars

Control Rank

National Rank

51 47 47 46 46 44 44 44 43 42 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 35 35 34 34 33 32 32 32 32 32 30 30 29 29 28 28 27 26 26 26 26 25 24 24 24 24 23 22 22 22 21 21 21 20 20 20

51 52 52 54 54 56 56 56 59 60 60 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 68 68 71 71 73 74 74 74 74 74 79 79 81 81 83 83 85 86 86 86 86 90 91 91 91 91 95 96 96 96 99 99 99 102 102 102

Page 125

Institutional Control

22 30 30 32 23 24 24 24 33 27 27 34 29 35 30 36 37 31 31 38 33 39 34 40 35 35 35 40 38 38 40 40 42 42 44 42 45 42 45 47 48 44 44 44 47 49 49 49 48 48 52 53 53 53

Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Private Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Private Public Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private

The Top 200 Institutions — National Merit Scholars (2000), continued Top 105–147 Institutions in Merit and Achievement Scholars (2000) Ball State University Carnegie Mellon University Hendrix College Texas Tech University University of South Florida Utah State University Worcester Polytechnic Institute Ohio University — Athens Oklahoma State University — Stillwater Michigan Technological University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology University of Richmond Bradley University George Washington University Harding University University of Dallas Gustavus Adolphus College Ithaca College Trinity University University of Dayton University of Louisville University of Puget Sound Valparaiso University Abilene Christian University American University Colorado College Colorado State University Davidson College Kansas State University Saint Louis University — St. Louis University of Delaware College of William and Mary Hope College Knox College University of California — Santa Barbara University of Idaho University of Oregon Boston College Illinois Wesleyan University Morehouse College Villanova University Birmingham Southern College Concordia College — Moorhead (MN) Denison University Kalamazoo College Lehigh University Southern Methodist University University of Colorado — Boulder University of Montana — Missoula West Virginia University Xavier University

Page 126

Number of Scholars

National Rank

19 19 19 19 19 19 19 18 18 17 17 17 17 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

Control Rank

105 105 105 105 105 105 105 112 112 114 114 114 114 118 118 118 118 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 137 137 137 137 137 137 143 143 143 143 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147 147

Institutional Control

50 56 56 50 50 50 56 54 54 56 59 59 59 62 62 62 62 66 66 66 66 57 66 66 72 72 72 58 72 58 72 58 61 77 77 61 61 61 79 79 79 79 83 83 83 83 83 83 65 65 65 83

Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Public Private

T h e To p 2 0 0 I n s t i t u t i o n s : N a t i o n a l M e r i t S c h o l a r s

The Top 200 Institutions — National Merit Scholars (2000), continued Top 157–186 Institutions in Merit and Achievement Scholars (2000) Indiana University — Bloomington Transylvania University Truman State University Wesleyan University DePauw University University of Evansville University of North Dakota — Grand Forks University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh Willamette University Alfred University Bowling Green State University — Bowling Green College of the Holy Cross Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science & Art Gonzaga University Hillsdale College Oral Roberts University Pepperdine University University of California — Santa Cruz University of Missouri — Rolla University of the South Wellesley College Drexel University Earlham College Gordon College John Carroll University Messiah College University of Southern Mississippi Ursinus College Xavier University of Louisiana Albertson College of Idaho Austin College Butler University College of Wooster Drake University Franklin & Marshall College Goshen College Haverford College Luther College Middlebury College Mississippi College Oregon State University Rochester Institute of Technology Samford University Sarah Lawrence College Smith College University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati University of Illinois — Chicago University of St. Thomas (MN) University of Wyoming Western Carolina University

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Number of Scholars

Control Rank

National Rank

10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

157 157 157 157 161 161 161 161 161 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186

Page 127

Institutional Control

68 90 68 90 92 92 70 70 92 95 72 95 95 95 95 95 95 72 72 95 95 104 104 104 104 104 75 104 104 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 76 111 111 111 111 76 76 111 76 76

Public Private Public Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Public Public

Page 128

Source Notes TheCenter Measures Total Research Expenditures Federal Research Expenditures Source: NSF/SRS Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, FY 1999.

Each year, the National Science Foundation (NSF) collects data from hundreds of academic institutions on expenditures for research and development in science and engineering fields and classifies them by source of funds (e.g. federal government, state and local government, industry, etc.). These data are the primary source of information on academic R&D expenditures in the U.S. Included in this survey are all activities specifically organized to produce research outcomes that are separately budgeted and accounted for. This “organized research” may be funded by an external agency or organization (“sponsored research”) or by a separately budgeted organizational unit within the institution (“university research”). This report excludes activities sponsored by external agencies that involve instruction, training (except training in research techniques, which is considered organized research), and health service, community service, or extension service projects. All Federally Funded Research Labs (FFRLs) are excluded from these academic expenditures data, including the following: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (California Institute of Technology); Los Alamos National Lab, Lawrence Livermore Lab, Lawrence Berkeley Lab (University of California); Software Engineering Institute (Carnegie Mellon); Argonne National Laboratory (University of Chicago); National Astronomy and Ionospheric Center (Cornell); Ames Laboratory (Iowa State University); Lincoln Laboratory (MIT); Plasma Physics Lab (Princeton); and Linear Accelerator Center (Stanford). The NSF data no longer classify the Applied Physics Lab (APL) at Johns Hopkins as an FFRL, but federal funds support the vast majority of research conducted there. The APL makes up about one-half of Johns Hopkins total R&D expenditures and 54 percent of their federal R&D expenditures.

While inconsistencies in reporting (known and unknown) do exist here, as in any survey of this type, problems arise mostly when one breaks out the data by source of funds. NSF expects institutions to use year-end accounting records to complete this report, and there are nationally recognized accounting guidelines for higher education institutions. However, there are also countless variations in institutional policy that determine whether the university reports a particular expenditure as coming from one source or another, or possibly not counted at all. Take federal formula funds for agriculture (e.g. Hatch-McIntire, Smith-Lever) as an example. We conducted an informal survey of the appropriate institutions in the Association of American Universities (AAU) and found that two out of eleven land grants did not include any of these federal funds in their 1997 NSF data, while others included all or some of these monies. Because these funds make up a very small percentage of the total research expenditures in any given year, the impact on our total research rankings is slight. It will have a somewhat greater, but still small, impact on the federal research rankings. NSF notes, “An increasing number of institutions have linkages with industry and foundations via subcontracts, thus complicating the identification of funding source. In addition, institutional policy may determine whether unrestricted state support is reported as state or as institutional funds.”1 We believe that the reporting inconsistencies in the data are relatively minor when using the total research expenditures and the federal research component. Federal and state government audits of institutional accounting make deceptive practices highly unlikely, even though these entities do not audit the NSF data directly. NSF goes to great lengths to verify the accuracy of the data, especially federal expenditure data — checking them against several other federal agencies that collect the same or similar information. ________________________________________________________ 1. Academic R&D Expenditures, FY 1996: Technical Notes (Online: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf98304/secta.htm)

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 129

In fact, all major federal agencies and their subdivisions submit data to NSF identifying research obligations to universities each year. Historically, the NSF data have tracked very closely the data reported by universities.2 Further, for their National Patterns of R&D Resources series, NSF prefers to use the figures reported by the performers of the work (that is, academic institutions, industry, nonprofits) because they believe that the performers are in the best position to accurately report these expenditures. In some sections of this report, these expenditure data are deflated to constant 1998 dollars to show real change over time. While NSF uses the Gross Domestic Price (GDP) implicit price deflator in its reports on federal trends in research, we use the Research & Development Price Index (R&DPI) because of its narrower focus. Developed by Research Associates of Washington, the R&DPI is based upon prices of goods and services bought by universities through current direct expenditures for sponsored research, including faculty salary data as reported by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).3 In contrast, the GDP implicit price deflator is based upon change in the entire U.S. economy and, as noted by NSF itself, “[its] use more accurately reflects an “opportunity cost” criterion [i.e., the value of R&D in terms of the amount of other goods and services that could have been spent with the same amount of money], rather than a measure of cost changes of doing research.”4 The federal research trend data always reflect the most recent published data available, because NSF allows institutions to submit revised figures for up to two years. Each year, NSF reports data for the current year as well as for the previous seven years. Therefore, we use the 1999 Survey data for fiscal years 1992–99, the 1998 Survey for FY 1991 data, and the 1997 Survey for FY 1990 data. If an institution reports in any ________________________________________________________ 2. National Patterns of R&D Resources, 1996: Technical Notes (Online: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf96333/append.htm 3. Inflation Measures for Schools, Colleges, and Libraries: 1998 Update, Research Associates of Washington, Washington, DC. 4. National Patterns of R&D Resources, 1998: Technical Notes (Online: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf99335)

Page 130

one of these three surveys, they are included in this ten-year federal data set. NSF’s published nationwide totals for federal academic R&D expenditures will not always match the corresponding totals in this study due to NSF’s sampling procedures for smaller or non-reporting institutions. In some years, rather than identifying the institutions individually, NSF provides one aggregate figure for all sampled institutions.

Endowment Assets Source: NACUBO Endowment Study as reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education, endowment market value as of June 30, 2000.

Institutions report the market value of their endowment assets as of June 30 to three different sources, and they quite often use three different values. For this project, we use the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) Endowment Study because of NACUBO’s long history of reporting endowments of higher education institutions, their emphasis on using audited financial statements, and their focus on net assets (i.e., includes returns on investments and excludes investment fees and other withdrawals). NACUBO conducts its study annually and reports the results each February in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Another source for endowment assets is the Council for Aid to Education’s (CAE) annual Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) survey, cosponsored by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) and the National Association of Independent Schools. The VSE survey is useful as a secondary resource because it provides more single-campus data than the other two sources. For those institutions that report a system-wide total to NACUBO, we often use the VSE data to calculate a campus’ percentage contribution to the entire system, applying that factor to the NACUBO figure. In other cases, we may substitute the VSE figure when the institution indicates that this is a good data source. The NCES IPEDS Finance Survey also collects information on endowment assets, but these figures

Source Notes

are often much lower than the two other sources and also are available much later. Although IPEDS instructions say to report endowment assets for “the institution and any of its foundations or affiliated organizations,” it appears that not all institutions do so. The fact that the NACUBO study requests net assets, while IPEDS and the VSE survey request gross assets, cannot explain the large differences found in some cases. In calling various institutions, we found it very difficult to determine exactly why the numbers vary so greatly. Oftentimes, two or more individuals at an institution independently report figures for these three reports with no clear understanding of how or why the numbers differ. An examination of the 1997 endowment figures provided by these institutions showed only one university (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) that submitted the same figure to each of the three organizations. We discovered no consistent pattern to explain reporting variations among the institutions. This area definitely warrants more study.

Annual Giving Source: Council for Aid to Education’s Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) Survey, FY 2000.

The Council for Aid to Education, an independent subsidiary of RAND, has produced the Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) Survey since 1986. The annual giving data include all contributions actually received during the institution’s fiscal year in the form of cash, securities, company products, and other property from alumni, non-alumni individuals, corporations, foundations, religious organizations, and other groups. Not included in the totals are public funds, earnings on investments held by the institution, and unfulfilled pledges. CAE’s VSE Data Miner service provides the last 10 years of data on all participating institutions online. Although this is a subscription-based service and requires a user ID and password, limited access is available at http://www.cae.org/vse/.

National Academy Members Source: National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine membership directories for 2000.

One of the highest honors that academic faculty can receive is membership in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), or the Institute of Medicine (IOM). All three are private, nonprofit organizations and serve as advisors to the federal government on science, technology, and medicine. Nominated and voted on by active members, newly elected members of these organizations receive life terms. Individuals elected to membership come from all sectors — academia, industry, government, and not-forprofit agencies or organizations. Member election dates are in February (NAE), April (NAS), and October (IOM). The data collected for these rankings use active or emeritus members at their affiliated work institution, as reported in the online membership directories. In all cases, we were able to determine the specific campus for individual members. We re-check institutional affiliation annually to account for established members who have changed employers or whose membership is no longer active.

Faculty Awards in the Arts, Humanities, Science, Engineering, and Health Source: Directories or web-based listings for multiple agencies or organizations.

For this category, we collect data from several prominent grant and fellowship programs in the arts, humanities, science, engineering, and health fields. Included in this measure: • American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) Fellows, 1999–00 • Beckman Young Investigators, 2000 • Burroughs-Wellcome Fund Career Awards, 2000 • Cottrell Scholars, 2000 • Fulbright American Scholars, 2000–01 • Getty Scholars in Residence, 2000–01 • Guggenheim Fellows, 2000 • Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigators, 1999–00

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 131

• Lasker Medical Research Awards, 2000 • MacArthur Foundation Fellows, 2000 • National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Fellows, 2001–02 • National Humanities Center Fellows, 2000–01 • NIH MERIT (R37) and Outstanding Young Investigator (R35), FY 2000 • National Medal of Science and National Medal of Technology, 2000 • NSF CAREER awards (excluding those who are also PECASE winners), 2000 • Newberry Library Long-term Fellows, 2000–01 • Pew Scholars in Biomedicine, 2000 • Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), 2000 • Robert Wood Johnson Policy Fellows, 1999–00 • Searle Scholars, 2000 • Sloan Research Fellows, 2000 • US Secretary of Agriculture Honor Awards, 2000 • Woodrow Wilson Fellows, 2000–01 While the vast majority of these programs clearly identify a particular campus, in a few instances we used the institution’s web-based phone directory to determine the correct campus.

Doctorates Awarded Source: NCES IPEDS Completions Survey, doctoral degrees awarded between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000.

Each year, universities report their degrees awarded to the National Center for Education Statistics in the IPEDS Completions Survey. IPEDS provides straightforward instructions for reporting doctoral degrees awarded, and we do not find any inconsistencies in reporting among the universities included in our rankings. IPEDS asks each institution to identify the number of Doctor of Education, Doctor of Juridical Science, Doctor of Public Health, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees awarded between July 1 and June 30. The doctorates measure used in last year’s report relies upon 1997–98 data, because that was the most recent data available at that time. Since TheCenter always uses the most current data, for this report we use the 1999–00 doctorates awarded.

Page 132

Each campus in our study submits degree data by campus, except for the few institutions identified in our Data Notes section. All of these institutions exclusively or primarily offer doctoral degrees at the main campus. In addition to doctorate degrees, TheCenter also presents degrees awarded at other levels — associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, and professional degrees — in the Student Characteristics table (see Data Tables, pp. 80).

Postdoctoral Appointees Source: NSF/SRS Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering, Fall 1999.

Each year, NSF and NIH collect data from all institutions offering graduate programs in any science, engineering, or health field. The Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (also called the Graduate Student Survey or GSS) reflects graduate enrollment and postdoctoral employment at the beginning of the academic year. Postdoctorates are defined in the GSS as “individuals with science and engineering Ph.D.’s, M.D.’s, D.D.S.’s or D.V.M.’s and foreign degrees equivalent to U.S. doctorates who devote their primary effort to their own research training through research activities or study in the department under temporary appointments carrying no academic rank.” The definition excludes clinical fellows and those in medical residency training programs unless the primary purpose of their appointment is for research training under a senior mentor. In the technical notes for this survey, NSF does not mention any potential measurement errors associated with this data item. Although each doctorate-granting campus submits data separately, NSF often aggregates them in its published reports. In all cases, we obtained the single campus data for these schools directly from NSF.

SAT Scores Source: The College Board’s College Handbook 2001, reflects the 1999 freshmen class.

The College Board reports the middle 50% range of verbal and math SAT I scores for most institutions in our study. The institutions submit these data to the College Board each spring through their Annual

Source Notes

Survey of Colleges. For our measure, we calculated the median of that range. Some institutions report the ACT instead of the SAT to the College Board. In those cases, we used a conversion table provided by The College Board to generate a comparable SAT equivalent score.5 When an institution did not submit either an SAT or ACT score, we substituted data from the prior year reported.

Other Measures of Undergraduate Quality National Merit and Achievement Scholars Source: The 1999–00 National Merit Scholarship Corporation Annual Report, reflects the 2000 freshmen class.

The National Merit Scholarship Corporation (NMSC) is an independent, non-profit organization that awards scholarships to the nation’s outstanding high school seniors based on their academic achievement, qualifying test scores, high school principal and counselor recommendations, and their activities, interests, and goals. The NMSC names approximately 14,000 National Merit Finalists each February. Of these, about one-half will receive a National Merit $2,500 Scholarship, a corporate-sponsored scholarship, or a collegesponsored scholarship. National Achievement Scholars are selected and funded in a similar fashion and represent the nation’s outstanding African-American students. Ideally, the National Hispanic Scholars Program should also be included in this category, but they do not track the enrollment of their scholarship winners. Should they do so in the future, we will include these students in TheCenter’s data. In this study, Merit and Achievement scholarships are credited to the main campus if the National Merit Scholarship Corporation Annual Report does not indicate a branch campus. While the number of National Merit and National Achievement award winners in the entering class provides an indication of the attractiveness of a university’s undergraduate program to ________________________________________________________ 5. Concordance Between SAT I and ACT Scores for Individual Students, Research Notes 07, June 1999 (Online: http://www.collegeboard.org/research/html/rn_indx.html).

outstanding students, it is also an indicator that is sensitive to institutional policies on financial aid. Because the number of Merit Scholars is small, relatively small changes in institutional aid policies can have a significant impact on the number of National Merit Scholars enrolling in institutions. The average SAT score provides a broader based and more reliable measure of overall undergraduate quality, and for those reasons we prefer the SAT scores to the number of National Merit and Achievement Scholars as an indicator of undergraduate quality.

Institutional Characteristics Medical Schools Source: NCES IPEDS Completions Survey, M.D. degrees awarded between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000.

Although the IPEDS Institutional Characteristics Survey does have a “medical” field that indicates whether an institution grants a medical degree, we chose not to use their data because it includes medical degrees in Veterinary Medicine. For our measure, we determined whether a particular campus awarded any M.D. degrees during the academic year. If the institution did not submit any data to IPEDS for that year, we then looked at whether they are accredited by the American Medical Association to determine whether the institution has a medical school.

Land Grant Institutions Source: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

The first Morrill Act in 1862 appropriated federal funds for universities to provide agricultural and technical education to its citizens. A second Morrill Act in 1890 expanded eligibility to include several historically black colleges and universities, and in 1994 several Native American tribal colleges were recognized as land grant institutions. Today, there is at least one land grant institution in each state and U.S. territory and in the District of Columbia. Of the 105 institutions, most are public universities. Federal land grant institutions receive both federal and state dollars in support of their agricultural and extension activities.

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 133

While land grant status technically applies to some university systems, such as the University of California and the University of Nebraska, for our study we designate as land grant institutions only those schools (e.g., UC-Davis, UC-Riverside, and Nebraska-Lincoln) that actually perform that function. In these cases, the land grant field will identify whether an institution is part of a system-wide land grant and whether the vast majority of the activity occurs on that campus. For example, UC-Davis is coded as a “Yes-System” while UCLA is coded as “No-System.” We consider the 1890 institutions as land grant institutions, but we identify them separately because they do not perform extension activities.

Research Focus Source: NSF/SRS Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, FY 1999.

In addition to reporting expenditure data by source of funds, NSF also identifies in what major disciplines the money is expended. In the Research table (Data Tables, pp. 50), we provide the proportion of federal expenditures in each discipline for those institutions with over $20 million in federal research. Since our last report, some institutions have expressed a desire to compare themselves to schools similar to themselves. This is an additional element that TheCenter provides to assist them in developing groups of institutions for peer analysis. The Institutional Characteristics table (Data Tables, pp. 74) provides a summary measure of an institution’s research strength and concentration based upon these disciplinelevel expenditures. Universities with 95–100% of their federal research dollars spent in one particular discipline are coded as “all.” We identify institutions with 75–94% in one area as “heavy,” and we label those with 50–74% of their expenditures concentrated as “strong.” Other universities with 25–49% in one or more disciplines we describe as “moderate” (A few institutions (but none in the over $20 million group) have expenditures distributed fairly evenly across the disciplines and those we code as “mixed.”

Page 134

In some cases, where an institution reports as a multi-campus entity, we made adjustments to break out the discipline-level expenditure data by single campus. Typically, this involved moving all or a portion of the life sciences expenditures to the health or medical center campus. IPEDS fall enrollment and graduate degrees by discipline data were also used to help in this effort. While these data offer some insight as to the research structure of a university, their usefulness is limited. For example, we may be tempted to use the life sciences as a surrogate for medical research, but we must remember that it also includes agricultural and biological sciences. Further, the growing trend toward multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary projects may make it more difficult for universities to accurately reflect expenditures by discipline or sub-discipline. TheCenter chose not to break out these sub-disciplines, because the data are increasingly prone to error as further adjustments are made.

Student Characteristics Fall Enrollment Source: NCES IPEDS Fall Enrollment Survey, 1999.

Each November, institutions report their current fall headcount enrollment to the IPEDS Fall Enrollment Survey. Enrollment figures include both degree seeking and non-degree seeking students. TheCenter provides the headcount enrollment by level as presented by IPEDS, along with the percentage of those attending part-time. Graduate students include those seeking specialist degrees in engineering and education. First professional students include those seeking degrees in medical fields, such as Chiropractic, Dentistry, Medicine, Optometry, Osteopathic Medicine, Pharmacy, Podiatry, and Veterinary Medicine, as well as those seeking degrees in Law and Theology. Each campus in our study submits enrollment data by campus, except for the few institutions identified in our Data Notes section. Because this is an informational item and not one of TheCenter’s nine quality measures, we did not attempt to adjust these figures.

Source Notes

Data Notes The raw data used for The Top American Research Universities project — obtained from federal agencies and national organizations — often contain information on single campus institutions, multiple campus institutions, and state university systems, without clearly identifying the distinctions. This makes national comparisons difficult and unreliable. To increase the validity and usefulness of these data, TheCenter adjusts the original reported figures, when necessary, to ensure that all data represent the strength of a single-campus institution. TheCenter bases its adjustments upon information gathered from the reporting agency or from the university itself. In cases where the published data represent a single campus, we do not adjust the data. When the data represent more than one campus, we first attempt to obtain a figure directly from NSF (for research expenditures and postdoctorates), from the institution itself, or from the university system office that submitted the data. If unavailable from those primary sources, we use an estimated or substitute figure derived from information found on the institution’s website. As a last resort, we will use prior year data as a substitute.

If the institution provides an estimate representing at least 97% of the originally published figure, we credit the full amount to the main campus. Otherwise, we use the estimate provided by the institution. TheCenter does not adjust the private university data because of multi-campus or system-wide reporting. We treat all private universities in this study as single campus institutions, because while some may have multiple campuses, they generally are in or around a single city and considered an integral part of the main campus. Furthermore, private institutions generally do not break out their data by regional, branch, or affiliated campus, as often happens with public institutions. The following tables outline the various adjustments or substitutions that we made to the original data. The tables list institutions alphabetically and include both private and public universities. For the purpose of this report, we provide notes for institutions with more than $20 million in FY 1999 federal research. Data notes for all other research universities are available on TheCenter website [http://thecenter.ufl.edu].

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 135

Data Notes for Universities with Over $20 Million Federal Research ORIGINAL DATA (dollars in thousands)

TheCenter DATA (dollars in thousands)

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$107,184

$107,184

Estimate at least 97% is Tempe campus based upon FY 98 data provided by institution. All dollars credited to Tempe campus.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$53,905

$53,905

Estimate at least 97% is Tempe campus based upon FY 98 data provided by institution. All dollars credited to Tempe campus.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$215,594

$215,594

At least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Tempe campus.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$73,198

$69,026

Data provided by institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$238,170

$238,170

Estimate at least 97% is main campus. All dollars credited to Auburn campus.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$37,301

$37,301

Estimate at least 97% is main campus. All dollars credited to Auburn campus.

Not Reported

$2,200

Data provided by institution.

$395,552

$395,552

Not Reported

950

$1,141,666

$1,141,666

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$194,790

$77,916

Estimate 40% is Bloomington campus based upon FY 99 data provided on institution’s website.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$102,262

$40,905

Used the same method described in Total Research (40%). No federal expenditure data available on website.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$907,463

$499,105

Estimate 55% is Bloomington campus, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$201,595

$100,797

Estimate 50% is Bloomington campus, per institution.

398

143

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$194,790

$116,874

Estimate 60% is IUPUI campus based upon FY 99 data provided on institution’s website.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$102,262

$61,357

Used the same method described in Total Research (60%). No federal expenditure data available on website.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$907,463

$381,134

Estimate 42% is IUPUI, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$201,595

$90,718

Estimate 45% is IUPUI campus, per institution.

398

255

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$874,518

$874,518

Johns Hopkins’ primarily federally funded Applied Physics Lab had $436 million in total FY 1999 R&D expenditures.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$770,580

$770,580

Johns Hopkins’ primarily federally funded Applied Physics Lab had $419 million in FY 1999 federal R&D expenditures.

Not Reported

1070

Kansas State did not report 1999 SAT nor ACT. Used 1999 median SAT as reported in US News College Rankings.

University/ STATISTIC

COMMENTS

Arizona State University — Tempe

Auburn University — Auburn

Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) Cornell University 1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

Cornell’s research expenditures reflect approximately $30 million in NY State budgeted dollars in support of their land grant mission.

Florida A&M University 1999 SAT Score (College Board)

Florida A&M does not report SAT nor ACT. Used 1999 median ACT as reported in US News College Rankings and converted to median SAT score.

Georgia Institute of Technology 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

Data represent both the Georgia Tech Foundation and the Georgia Institute of Technology, per institution.

Indiana University — Bloomington

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF.

Indiana University-Purdue University — Indianapolis

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF.

Johns Hopkins University

Kansas State University 1999 SAT Score (College Board)

Page 136

Data Notes

Data Notes for Universities with Over $20 Million Federal Research ORIGINAL DATA (dollars in thousands)

TheCenter DATA (dollars in thousands)

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$225,808

$158,672

Data provided by institution.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$75,831

$37,291

Data provided by institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$211,653

$189,813

Data provided by institution.

Not Reported

$33,400

Data provided by institution.

179

72

Not Reported

1090

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$225,808

$44,726

Data provided by institution.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$75,831

$24,150

Data provided by institution. Includes both Shreveport and New Orleans campuses.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$211,653

$21,840

Estimate remaining amount of LSU System (i.e., minus Baton Rouge), approximately 10%, is the Health Sciences Center.

179

74

Not Reported

$17,800

Not Reported

1070

Not Reported

$12,000

Data provided by institution.

$52,444

$52,444

At least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Las Cruces campus.

Not Reported

$8,452

Data provided by institution.

18

18

Las Cruces is the only doctorate-granting campus.

Not Reported

970

Las Cruces campus did not report 1999 SAT, but did report median ACT. Converted ACT score to SAT score.

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$322,810

$322,810

Regional campuses comprise less than 1% of research dollars, per institution’s annual report on website. All dollars credited to Columbus campus.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$135,216

$135,216

Regional campuses comprise less than 1% of research dollars, per institution’s annual report on website. All dollars credited to Columbus campus.

$1,294,923

$1,294,923

About 99% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Columbus campus.

$174,329

$174,329

Estimate at least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Columbus campus.

264

264

University/ STATISTIC

COMMENTS

Louisiana State University — Baton Rouge

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE) 1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF) 1999 SAT Score (College Board)

Data obtained directly from NSF. LSU did not report 1999 SAT, but did report median ACT. Converted ACT score to SAT score.

Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF. Includes both Shreveport and New Orleans campuses.

Medical College of Wisconsin

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

Data obtained from institution’s website.

Mississippi State University 1999 SAT Score (College Board)

Mississippi State did not report 1999 SAT, but did report median ACT. Converted ACT score to SAT score.

Montana State University — Bozeman 2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE) New Mexico State University — Las Cruces 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) 2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE) 1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF) 1999 SAT Score (College Board) Ohio State University — Columbus

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) 2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE) 1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Columbus is the only doctorate-granting campus.

Page 137

Data Notes for Universities with Over $20 Million Federal Research ORIGINAL DATA (dollars in thousands)

TheCenter DATA (dollars in thousands)

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$83,108

$83,108

Estimate 99% is Stillwater campus based upon FY 99 data provided on institution’s website. All dollars credited to Stillwater campus.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$23,179

$23,179

Estimate 98% is Stillwater campus based upon FY 99 data provided on institution’s website. All dollars credited to Stillwater campus.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$166,885

$166,885

At least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Stillwater campus.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$39,431

$37,984

96.33% is Stillwater campus, per institution.

35

35

Not Reported

$51,535

Data provided by institution.

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$379,402

$45,528

Estimate 12% is Hershey campus, per institution.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$199,105

$23,893

Estimate 12% is Hershey campus, per institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$976,298

$97,630

Estimate 10% is Hershey campus based upon giving data on institution’s website.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$170,854

$12,800

Data obtained from institution’s website.

297

51

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$379,402

$333,874

Estimate 88% is University Park campus, per institution.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$199,105

$175,212

Estimate 88% is University Park campus, per institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$976,298

$781,038

Estimate 80% is University Park campus based upon giving data on institution’s website.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$170,854

$125,958

Data obtained from institution’s website.

297

246

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$226,411

$226,411

Estimate 98% is West Lafayette campus, per institution. All dollars credited to West Lafayette campus.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$95,708

$95,708

Estimate 98% is West Lafayette campus, per institution. All dollars credited to main campus.

$1,301,976

$1,301,976

$88,318

$84,358

228

228

Not Reported

$347,611

Did not report FY 00 to NACUBO nor VSE. Substituted FY 99 NACUBO data.

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$213,838

$190,316

Estimate 89% is New Brunswick campus, per institution.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$75,664

$67,341

Estimate 89% is New Brunswick campus, per institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$435,064

$400,259

Estimate 92% is New Brunswick campus, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$85,983

$73,945

Estimate 86% is New Brunswick campus, per institution.

191

151

Data obtained directly from NSF.

Not Reported

1160

Saint Louis did not report 1999 SAT, but did report median ACT. Converted ACT score to SAT score.

University/ STATISTIC

COMMENTS

Oklahoma State University — Stillwater

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Stillwater is the only doctorate-granting campus.

Oregon Health Sciences University 2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE) Pennsylvania State University — Hershey Medical Ctr

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF.

Pennsylvania State University — University Park

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF.

Purdue University — West Lafayette

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) 2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE) 1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

98% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to West Lafayette campus. Data provided by institution. All postdocs on West Lafayette campus, per NSF.

Rush University 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) Rutgers the State University of NJ — New Brunswick

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF) Saint Louis University — St. Louis 1999 SAT Score (College Board)

Page 138

Data Notes

Data Notes for Universities with Over $20 Million Federal Research University/ STATISTIC

ORIGINAL DATA (dollars in thousands)

TheCenter DATA (dollars in thousands)

Not Reported

$900

$66,777

$66,777

Estimate at least 97% is Philadelphia campuses (includes main campus, Health Sciences Center, and City Center). All dollars credited to Philadelphia.

COMMENTS

State Univ. of New York Downstate Medical Center 2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

Data provided by institution.

Temple University 1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF) 1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$29,734

$29,734

Estimate at least 97% is Philadelphia campuses. All dollars credited to Philadelphia.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$156,762

$156,762

At least 97% is main campus. All dollars credited to Philadelphia campuses.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$39,721

$39,721

Estimate at least 97% is main campus. All dollars credited to Philadelphia campuses.

113

113

28,124

28,124

$4,205,849

$3,932,469

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

Not Reported

$400,000

Did not report FY 00 to NACUBO nor VSE. Estimated $400 million, a slight increase from FY 99.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

Not Reported

$31,000

Data obtained from institution’s website.

Not Reported

$66,000

Data obtained from institution’s website. Data provided by institution.

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF) 1999 Fall Enrollment (IPEDS)

Assume all postdocs on Philadelphia campuses. Temple reports enrollment for all campuses combined. Approximately 80% of the reported students are enrolled at one of the three Philadelphia campuses.

Texas A&M University 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

Estimate 93.5% is College Station campus, per institution.

Thomas Jefferson University

Tulane University 2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE) University of Alabama — Birmingham 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) 1999 SAT Score (College Board)

$619,891

$228,740

Not Reported

1010

Birmingham campus did not report 1999 SAT, but did report median ACT. Converted ACT score to SAT score.

University of Alabama — Huntsville 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) 2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$619,891

$20,456

Data provided by institution.

Not Reported

$10,503

Data provided by institution.

University of Alaska — Fairbanks 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$171,322

$97,134

Estimated figure provided by institution.

Not Reported

$9,429

Data provided by institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

Not Reported

$64,079

Data provided by institution. Does not report to NACUBO nor VSE.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

Not Reported

$27,600

Data obtained from institution’s website.

$6,493,809

$2,168,671

Substituted FY 00 VSE data. NACUBO total closely matches the VSE system total. The NACUBO figure reported here is the sum of the U of California, the UCLA Fdn, the UC San Francisco Fdn, and the UC San Diego Fdn.

$6,493,809

$395,346

Substituted FY 00 VSE data. NACUBO total closely matches the VSE system total. The NACUBO figure reported here is the sum of the U of California, the UCLA Fdn, the UC San Francisco Fdn, and the UC San Diego Fdn.

$6,493,809

$128,738

Substituted FY 00 VSE data. NACUBO total closely matches the VSE system total. The NACUBO figure reported here is the sum of the U of California, the UCLA Fdn, the UC San Francisco Fdn, and the UC San Diego Fdn.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE) University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

University of California — Berkeley 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

University of California — Davis 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

University of California — Irvine 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 139

Data Notes for Universities with Over $20 Million Federal Research ORIGINAL DATA (dollars in thousands)

TheCenter DATA (dollars in thousands)

$6,493,809

$1,447,371

Substituted FY 00 VSE data. NACUBO total closely matches the VSE system total. The NACUBO figure reported here is the sum of the U of California, the UCLA Fdn, the UC San Francisco Fdn, and the UC San Diego Fdn.

$6,493,809

$292,730

Substituted FY 00 VSE data. NACUBO total closely matches the VSE system total. The NACUBO figure reported here is the sum of the U of California, the UCLA Fdn, the UC San Francisco Fdn, and the UC San Diego Fdn.

$6,493,809

$912,258

Substituted FY 00 VSE data. NACUBO total closely matches the VSE system total. The NACUBO figure reported here is the sum of the U of California, the UCLA Fdn, the UC San Francisco Fdn, and the UC San Diego Fdn.

$6,493,809

$85,866

Substituted FY 00 VSE data. NACUBO total closely matches the VSE system total. The NACUBO figure reported here is the sum of the U of California, the UCLA Fdn, the UC San Francisco Fdn, and the UC San Diego Fdn.

$6,493,809

$85,285

Substituted FY 00 VSE data. NACUBO total closely matches the VSE system total. The NACUBO figure reported here is the sum of the U of California, the UCLA Fdn, the UC San Francisco Fdn, and the UC San Diego Fdn.

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$153,002

$153,002

Branch campuses offer AA degrees or less, per IPEDS. Estimate at least 97% is Cincinnati campus. All dollars credited to Cincinnati campus.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$100,325

$100,325

Estimate at least 97% is Cincinnati campus. All dollars credited to Cincinnati campus.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$963,907

$963,907

99.5% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Cincinnati campus.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$61,671

$61,671

99.6% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Cincinnati campus.

224

224

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$318,618

$184,237

Data provided by institution.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$244,686

$140,959

Data provided by institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$398,267

$238,960

Estimate 60% is Boulder campus, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$95,474

$57,284

Estimate 60% is Boulder campus, per institution.

559

274

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$318,618

$130,450

Data provided by institution.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$244,686

$101,044

Data provided by institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$398,267

$119,480

Estimate 30% is Health Center campus, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$95,474

$28,642

Estimate 30% is Health Center campus, per institution.

559

285

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$134,986

$59,394

Estimate 44% is Health Center campus, per institution.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$55,496

$31,633

Estimate 57% is Health Center campus, per institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$179,483

$53,845

Estimate 30% is Health Center campus, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$36,955

$5,200

Estimate obtained from institution’s website.

198

139

University/ STATISTIC

COMMENTS

University of California — Los Angeles 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

University of California — San Diego 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

University of California — San Francisco 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

University of California — Santa Barbara 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

University of California — Santa Cruz 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

University of Cincinnati — Cincinnati

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Cincinnati is the only doctorate-granting campus.

University of Colorado — Boulder

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF.

University of Colorado Health Sciences Center

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF.

University of Connecticut — Health Center

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Page 140

Data obtained directly from NSF.

Data Notes

Data Notes for Universities with Over $20 Million Federal Research ORIGINAL DATA (dollars in thousands)

TheCenter DATA (dollars in thousands)

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$134,986

$75,592

Estimate 56% is Storrs campus, per institution.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$55,496

$23,863

Estimate 43% is Storrs campus, per institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$179,483

$125,638

Estimate 70% is Storrs campus, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$36,955

$31,755

Estimate obtained from institution’s website.

198

59

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$188,027

$172,985

Estimate 92% is Manoa campus, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$28,202

$22,844

Estimate 81% is Manoa campus, per institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$443,883

$390,617

Estimate 88% is University Park campus, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$91,792

$80,777

Estimate 88% is University Park campus, per institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$915,436

$119,007

Estimate 13% is Chicago campus, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$160,453

$38,509

Estimate 24% is Chicago campus, per institution.

1999 SAT Score (College Board)

Not Reported

1070

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$915,436

$585,879

Estimate 64% is Urbana campus, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$160,453

$107,504

Estimate 67% is Urbana campus, per institution.

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$132,752

$73,831

Data provided by institution.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$57,272

$33,176

Data provided by institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$855,452

$684,362

Estimate 80% is Lawrence, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$78,491

$62,793

Estimate 80% is Lawrence campus, per institution.

180

130

Data obtained directly from NSF.

Not Reported

1110

Lawrence campus did not report 1999 SAT, but did report median ACT. Converted ACT score to SAT score.

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$132,752

$58,921

Data provided by institution.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$57,272

$24,096

Data provided by institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$855,452

$171,090

Estimate 20% is Medical Center, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$78,491

$15,698

Estimate 20% is Medical Center campus, per institution.

180

50

Not Reported

1125

$498,533

$149,560

University/ STATISTIC

COMMENTS

University of Connecticut — Storrs

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF.

University of Hawaii — Manoa

University of Houston — University Park

University of Illinois — Chicago

Chicago campus did not report 1999 SAT, but did report median ACT. Converted ACT score to SAT score.

University of Illinois — Urbana-Champaign

University of Kansas — Lawrence

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF) 1999 SAT Score (College Board) University of Kansas Medical Center

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF.

University of Kentucky 1999 SAT Score (College Board)

Kentucky did not report 1999 SAT, but did report median ACT. Converted ACT score to SAT score.

University of Maryland — Baltimore 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Estimate 30% is Baltimore campus based upon FY 00 VSE data.

Page 141

Data Notes for Universities with Over $20 Million Federal Research University/ STATISTIC

ORIGINAL DATA (dollars in thousands)

TheCenter DATA (dollars in thousands)

$498,533

$319,061

Estimate 64% is College Park campus based upon FY 00 VSE data.

$148,288

$65,247

Estimate 44% is Amherst campus, per institution.

364

143

COMMENTS

University of Maryland — College Park 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) University of Massachusetts — Amherst 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) 1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF.

University of Massachusetts Medical Sch — Worcester 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$148,288

$41,521

Estimate 28% is Worcester campus, per institution.

Not Reported

$13,159

Data provided by institution.

364

214

Not Reported

$22,400

Data obtained from institution’s website.

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$508,619

$508,619

Branch campuses conduct very little research, per institution. All dollars credited to Ann Arbor campus.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$334,226

$334,226

Branch campuses conduct very little research, per institution. All dollars credited to Ann Arbor campus.

$3,468,372

$3,329,637

Estimate 96% is Ann Arbor campus, per institution.

$230,605

$221,381

Estimate 96% is Ann Arbor campus, per institution.

729

728

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$371,384

$356,529

Estimate 96% is Twin Cities campus based upon FY 99 data on institution’s website.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$207,761

$207,761

Estimate at least 97% is Twin Cities campus based upon FY 97 data provided by institution. All dollars credited to Twin Cities campus.

$1,809,305

$1,809,305

At least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Twin Cities campus. Total reported is the sum of the U of Minnesota and Fdn and the Minnesota Medical Fnd.

$193,950

$193,950

At least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Twin Cities campus.

532

518

$753,000

$379,095

Substituted FY 00 VSE data. NACUBO system total closely matches the VSE system total.

Not Reported

1200

Columbia campus did not report 1999 SAT, but did report median ACT. Converted ACT score to SAT score.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$901,864

$590,875

Data provided by institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$75,580

$47,615

Estimate 63% is Lincoln campus based upon recent fundraising campaign results.

$42,814

$128,789

Substituted FY 00 VSE data. NACUBO figure includes only the Reno Foundation and not the entire university.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE) 1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF.

University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey 2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE) University of Michigan — Ann Arbor

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) 2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE) 1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF.

University of Minnesota — Twin Cities

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE) 1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF.

University of Missouri — Columbia 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) 1999 SAT Score (College Board) University of Nebraska — Lincoln

University of Nevada — Reno 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

Page 142

Data Notes

Data Notes for Universities with Over $20 Million Federal Research ORIGINAL DATA (dollars in thousands)

TheCenter DATA (dollars in thousands)

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$57,613

$57,613

Estimate at least 97% is Durham campus. All dollars credited to Durham campus.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$30,586

$30,586

Estimate at least 97% is Durham campus. All dollars credited to Durham campus.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$164,482

$148,034

Estimate 90% is Durham campus, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$11,790

$11,790

At least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Durham campus.

14

14

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$202,558

$202,558

At least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Albuquerque campus.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$30,879

$30,879

At least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Albuquerque campus.

92

92

$142,085

$79,568

Estimate 56% is Norman campus based upon FY 99 data provided on institution’s website.

University/ STATISTIC

COMMENTS

University of New Hampshire — Durham

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Durham is the only doctorate-granting campus.

University of New Mexico — Albuquerque

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Albuquerque is the only doctorate-granting campus.

University of Oklahoma — Norman 1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF) 1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$57,589

$29,370

Estimate 51% is Norman campus based upon FY 97 data provided by institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$492,127

$417,909

Data provided by institution. Figure based upon VSE reported total of $549,880.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$77,642

$51,244

Estimate 66% is Norman campus, per institution.

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

125

68

Not Reported

1110

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$142,085

$62,517

Estimate 44% is Health Center campus based upon FY 99 data provided on institution’s website.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$57,589

$28,219

Estimate 49% is Health Center campus based upon FY 97 data provided by institution.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$492,127

$131,971

Data provided by institution. Figure based upon VSE reported total of $549,880.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$77,642

$26,398

Estimate 34% is Health Center campus, per institution.

125

57

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$249,477

$249,477

Regional campuses conduct very little research, per institution. All dollars credited to Pittsburgh campus.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$194,618

$194,618

Regional campuses conduct very little research, per institution. All dollars credited to Pittsburgh campus.

$1,018,015

$1,018,015

At least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Pittsburgh campus.

$82,030

$82,030

At least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Pittsburgh campus.

432

432

1999 SAT Score (College Board)

Data obtained directly from NSF. Norman campus did not report 1999 SAT, but did report median ACT. Converted ACT score to SAT score.

University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Data obtained directly from NSF.

University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) 2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE) 1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Pittsburgh is the only doctorate-granting campus.

Page 143

Data Notes for Universities with Over $20 Million Federal Research ORIGINAL DATA (dollars in thousands)

TheCenter DATA (dollars in thousands)

COMMENTS

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$44,452

$44,452

Estimate at least 97% is Kingston campus. All dollars credited to Kingston campus.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$36,207

$36,207

Estimate at least 97% is Kingston campus. All dollars credited to Kingston campus.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$64,881

$64,881

Virtually all is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Kingston campus.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$12,758

$12,758

100% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Kingston campus.

39

39

14,577

14,577

URI reports enrollment for all campuses combined. Approximately 90% of the reported students are enrolled at the Kingston campus, but all are credited to Kingston in this study.

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$105,835

$105,835

Virtually all is Columbia campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Columbia campus.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$48,490

$48,490

Virtually all is Columbia campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Columbia campus.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$267,740

$267,740

Estimate at least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Columbia campus.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$57,726

$52,357

90.7% is Columbia campus, per institution.

82

82

1075

1084

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$158,930

$101,717

Estimate 64% is Knoxville campus based upon FY 99 data provided on institution’s website.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$70,187

$44,920

Estimate 64% is Knoxville campus based upon FY 99 total research data provided on institution’s website.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$440,309

$258,000

Data provided by institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$74,498

$48,004

Data provided by institution.

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$158,930

$46,090

Estimate 29% is Memphis campus based upon FY 99 data provided on institution’s website.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$70,187

$20,354

Estimate 29% is Memphis campus based upon FY 99 total research data provided on institution’s website.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$440,309

$167,000

Data obtained from institution’s website.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$74,498

$15,500

Data obtained from institution’s website.

$10,013,175

$1,611,050

Substituted FY 00 VSE data, per institution.

$10,013,175

$96,519

Substituted FY 00 VSE data, per institution.

$10,013,175

$293,090

Substituted FY 00 VSE data, per institution.

University/ STATISTIC

University of Rhode Island — Kingston

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF) 1999 Fall Enrollment (IPEDS)

Kingston is the primary doctorate-granting campus. All postdocs credited to Kingston campus.

University of South Carolina — Columbia

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Columbia campus is the only doctorate-granting campus.

University of South Florida 1999 SAT Score (College Board)

Combined USF (1075) and New College (1300); weighted score based upon proportion of incoming freshmen.

University of Tennessee — Knoxville

University of Tennessee Health Science Center

University of Texas — Austin 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) University of Texas Health Science Center — Houston 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) University of Texas Health Science Ctr — San Antonio 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

Page 144

Data Notes

Data Notes for Universities with Over $20 Million Federal Research ORIGINAL DATA (dollars in thousands)

TheCenter DATA (dollars in thousands)

$10,013,175

$300,480

Substituted FY 00 VSE data, per institution.

$10,013,175

$342,602

Substituted FY 00 VSE data, per institution.

$10,013,175

$713,253

Substituted FY 00 VSE data, per institution.

Not Reported

$189,153

Substituted FY 00 VSE data multiplied by .90 based upon comparison of VSE to NACUBO data in past years.

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$482,659

$482,659

Less than 1% of research expenditures can be attributed to branch campuses, per institution’s website. All dollars credited to Seattle campus.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$368,112

$368,112

Less than 1% of research expenditures can be attributed to branch campuses, per institution’s website. All dollars credited to Seattle campus.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$949,796

$911,804

Estimate 96% is Seattle campus, per institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$225,575

$225,575

At least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Seattle campus.

1,057

1,057

$1,165,413

$1,080,363

1999 Science & Engineering R&D Expenditures (NSF)

$96,943

$96,943

Estimate at least 97% is Pullman campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Pullman campus.

1999 Federal Research Expenditures (NSF)

$44,610

$44,610

Estimate at least 97% is Pullman campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Pullman campus.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

$437,093

$437,093

At least 97% is main campus, per institution. All dollars credited to Pullman campus.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

$47,483

$45,808

Estimate obtained from institution’s website.

163

163

20,799

20,799

Washington State reports enrollment for all campuses combined. Approximately 85% of the reported students are enrolled at the Pullman campus, but all are credited to Pullman in this study.

Not Reported

970

Wayne State did not report 1999 SAT, but did report median ACT. Converted ACT score to SAT score.

Not Reported

$299,825

Substituted FY 00 VSE data. NACUBO has matched exactly with VSE data in past years.

2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

Not Reported

$278,829

Data provided by institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

Not Reported

$15,588

Data provided by institution.

2000 Annual Giving (CAE VSE)

Not Reported

$41,299

Substituted FY 99 data from Chronicle of Philanthropy.

1999 SAT Score (College Board)

Not Reported

1190

University/ STATISTIC

COMMENTS

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) University of Texas Medical Branch — Galveston 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) University of Texas SW Medical Center — Dallas 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) University of Vermont 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) University of Washington — Seattle

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF)

Seattle is the only doctorate-granting campus.

University of Wisconsin — Madison 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO)

Original data represent both the U of Wisconsin Foundation (100% Madison) and the U of Wisconsin System. Substituted FY 00 VSE data.

Washington State University — Pullman

1999 Postdoc Appointees in Sci, Eng & Hlth (NSF) 1999 Fall Enrollment (IPEDS)

Pullman is the primary doctorate-granting campus. All postdocs credited to Pullman campus.

Wayne State University 1999 SAT Score (College Board) West Virginia University 2000 Endowment Assets (NACUBO) Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Yeshiva University

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Yeshiva did not report 1999 SAT nor ACT. Used 1999 median SAT as reported in US News College Rankings.

Page 145

Page 146

TheCenter Advisory Board

TheCenter Publications

Arthur M. Cohen

The Top American Research Universities by John V. Lombardi, et al. (2000) [http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research2000.html]

Professor, Higher Education and Work Director, ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges University of California, Los Angeles

Larry Goldstein Senior Vice President Center for Accounting, Finance, and Institutional Management NACUBO

Gerardo M. Gonzalez University Dean for the School of Education Indiana University

D. Bruce Johnstone Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Director, Learning Productivity Network Director, International Comparative Higher Education Finance and Accessibility Project University at Buffalo

The Competition for Top Undergraduates by America’s Colleges and Universities by Denise S. Gater (2001) [http://thecenter.ufl.edu/gaterUG1.html] The Use of IPEDS/AAUP Faculty Data in Institutional Peer Comparisons by Denise S. Gater and John V. Lombardi (2001) [http://thecenter.ufl.edu/gaterFaculty1.html] Toward Determining Societal Value Added Criteria for Research and Comprehensive Universities by Roger Kaufman (2001) [http://thecenter.ufl.edu/kaufman1.html] U.S. News & World Report's Methodology by Denise S. Gater (2000, Revised) [http://thecenter.ufl.edu/usnews.html]

Roger Kaufman Professor and Director, Needs Assessment & Planning Associate Director, Learning Systems Institute Florida State University

Ernest Pascarella Mary Louise Petersen Chair in Higher Education Planning, Policy, and Leadership Studies University of Iowa

Gordon C. Winston Orrin Sage Professor of Economics Director, Williams Project on the Economics of Higher Education Williams College

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

Page 147

TheCenter Staff John V. Lombardi Director Professor of History

Elizabeth D. Capaldi Research Program Director Provost, University at Buffalo

Diane D. Craig Coordinator, Research

Lynne N. Collis Administrative Services

Denise S. Gater Research Associate Associate Director of Institutional Research

Sarah L. Mendonça Graduate Assistant

Anney B. Doucette Student Assistant

Page 148

T h e To p A m e r i c a n R e s e a r c h U n i v e r s i t i e s

TheCenter PO Box 112012 Gainesville, FL 32611-2012 Phone: (352) 846-3501 Fax: (352) 846-3510 http://thecenter.ufl.edu [email protected]