Research Messenger
Volume 1 Issue 5
May 16, 2007
We're Number 140.
We are thought of as the research university of the CSU, and with some justification. But activity in the CSU, constrained by the lack a state-mandated research mission, is not the proper metric for our achievements. My purpose in this issue of the RM is to offer a perspective on our national standing as a research university.
Available measures of research stature are all flawed in being too focused on research support, number of post-docs, publications in Science and Nature (but not PMLA), and major awards. This biases the evaluation toward the sciences. A distinguished History Department may contribute as much to the scholarly life of a university as a fine biology department, but the measures of distinction in the former tend to be qualitative, and so devolve into professional judgements of reputation, or "academic gossip“ in the words of its detractors. When raters seek objectivity, STEM fields provide the numbers, and so affect the outcomes disproportionately.
That concern acknowledged but not remedied, there are three recent measures of SDSU's research stature, and they are in broad agreement that we rank in the neighborhood of 140th nationally.
First, and most simply, the NSF's annual list of federal and of total research expenditures. While NSF compiles the list, it includes all federal agencies that support research plus self-report data on total research obligations. We presently rank #140 (#93 among public universities) in total expenditures, immediately surrounded by the likes of Univ. Oregon, Univ. Rhode Island, and West Virginia Univ. Of the 4398 institutions of higher learning in the U.S., 1243 are listed by the NSF as receiving some federal support, but unless you grew up in their towns, you've never heard of the last 300.
Secondly, the Carnegie classification. There are four broad categories in the new taxonomy: associate, baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral/research institutions. SDSU is in the fourth, within which there are three subcategories, ploddingly labeled “research,” “high research,” and “very high research.” Such lack of creativity may represent compensation for the confusion sowed by Carnegie's previous designations of “research extensive” and “research intensive,” one of which presumably indicated a higher level of research.
SDSU falls in the middle subcategory of “high research.” That plays well in the non-academic community – particularly if spoken in italics and with a barely flawed attempt not to sound boastful – and leaves us again in the company of Oregon, URI and WVU. Among the flagship universities of the 50 states, 33 are in the “very high research” subcategory, and 17 are with us. Overall, there are 96 institutions with “very high research” and 103 with “high research.” Thus, the Carnegie Foundation would place us between 97th and 199th, the midpoint of which is 148th.
Finally, we have a ranking of the world's top 500 universities, compiled by Jiao Tong University in Shanghai. Since this is an international ranking, funding measures and the associated number of post-docs disappear, and attention turns to those indices that are presumably equally available to all scholars. Jiao Tong uses six criteria: (1) number of alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals (we score zero); (2) number of faculty winning Nobels and Fields (same score); (3) number of highly-cited researchers (we have three and this somehow generates 13.6 points); (4) number of articles in Science and Nature (we earn 10.0 points); (5) number of citations in Science, in Social Science, and in Arts and Humanities citation indices (this is the most comprehensive measure, and we make our best showing with 25.8 points); and (6) a control for size, i.e., the total score divided by the FTEF (we score 12.4 points).
The outcome is that SDSU is ranked in the 300-400 century worldwide, and 120-140th in the U.S., along with Auburn, CCNY, and, yes URI.
So we have convergence at about 140th, both a source of some pride and a goad to keep writing.
I wish you a research–active summer.
Tom Scott