img:is([sizes=auto i],[sizes^="auto," i]){contain-intrinsic-size:3000px 1500px} /*# sourceURL=wp-img-auto-sizes-contain-inline-css */

天美影视传媒

Skip to content
Blog

Category: Higher Ed Research

UW Recognized in Princeton Review’s Best Value College Rankings

Posted on

The Princeton Review released The Best Value Colleges rankings this month and the 天美影视传媒 Seattle continues to be recognized as one of the best colleges in the U.S. The Best Value College rankings considered schools with demonstrated excellence in areas such as academics, financial aid, career prospects, and student experience.

In compiling The Best Value Colleges list, The Princeton Review considered more than 40 data points.聽 The data points include academic outcomes, cost, financial aid, debt, graduation rates, and career and salary outcomes for alumni.聽 Out of 650 schools considered, 209 schools made the rankings, which the Princeton Review commended as

鈥溾�ruly the most exceptional in the nation at delivering great academics, affordable cost, and great career foundations.聽 We strongly recommend and salute the colleges we present here for all they do to help their students with need afford to attend them while delivering an amazing college experience that鈥檚 worth every penny.鈥�1

Among public institutions, the 天美影视传媒 Seattle was rated #16 on the list of Top 50 Best Value Colleges, up from #18 in 2021.聽 The Best Value Colleges list considers seven categories in its ranking: overall value, value for students without financial aid, alumni network activity, internship accessibility, career placement, financial aid, and schools making an impact.聽 Of the seven categories that went into the Best Value Colleges list, the 天美影视传媒 Seattle ranked in the top 20 in four categories.

When it comes to value, the 天美影视传媒 Seattle was recognized for providing a great return on investment for students.聽 This year, the UW Seattle placed #11 on the list of Top 20 Best Schools for Internships, highlighting the multitude of career training opportunities students have access to.聽 Additionally, the UW Seattle placed #16 on the list of Top 20 Best Career Placement in recognition of its career support services and salary outcomes for alumni.

Finally, the 天美影视传媒 Seattle was also recognized for engaging students in important work in the community and beyond.聽 This year the UW Seattle placed #5 on the list of Top 20 Schools for Making an Impact.

 

1

 

UW Ranked #28 in the World for Second Straight Year by Times Higher Education (THE)

Posted on

The 天美影视传媒 maintains its #28 rank for second year in a row in the Times Higher Education (THE) , released Wednesday July 17th. This ranking is commonly used to measure a university鈥檚 global impact.

The UW is one of only 11 of our US News top public research university peers to make the top 50 in the reputation ranking. In that group of 11, UW is ranked 4th overall, coming in 4th in both research and instruction.

This ranking is based on an opinion survey sent to published scholars around the world. THE asks scholars to name the top 15 universities that come to mind in two categories:聽 research and teaching. The ranking score is a count of how many times an institution is named by a respondent as being the best in their field. 聽This year, Harvard University was cited most often, therefore their score was set to 100 and the rest of the universities were graded on a curve as a percentage of Harvard鈥檚 100 score.

聽In the survey, scholars are asked their opinions based on their specific discipline.聽 Scholars with at least 14 years of experience in their field are invited to respond.聽 This year, THE received 11,554 responses.

Finally, it is worth noting that the survey data used for the Reputation Ranking serves as one of 11 indicators used to create THE World University Rankings that will be published in the fall.

Public Profiles – New Interactive Dashboards Now Available!

Posted on

In May聽2018, in collaboration with UW-IT鈥檚 Enterprise Information, Integration and Analytics (EIIA) unit, the Office of Planning and Budgeting (OPB) relaunched Public Profiles, which are now five interactive dashboards including:

All dashboards, except Degrees Production Trends (which is refreshed every August), are refreshed with new data every academic quarter after census day. The data is sourced from the 天美影视传媒鈥檚 Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW). The numbers presented in all dashboards have been approved by OPB and reconcile against internal institutional dashboards – (requires access to EDW).

These dashboards act as the 天美影视传媒鈥檚 鈥淚nstitutional Fact Book.鈥澛� Anyone with the access to the internet can view these dashboards using their preferred browser. Explore the dashboards: /opb/uw-data/uw-profiles-information/

Check back for additional dashboards and visualizations as they become available. Updates regarding these dashboards are also provided by UW-IT on their .

Please contact uwprofiles@uw.edu with any questions or for help using these dashboards.

New Peer Tuition Comparisons Now Available

Posted on

The Office of Planning & Budgeting has recently published new peer tuition comparisons for the 2016-17 academic year. The allow you to see UW tuition rates alongside those of peer institutions.

In the past, OPB has published tuition comparisons for Global Challenge State (GCS) peer institutions. However, more recently OPB has moved away from GCS peer comparisons toward comparisons based on the US News & World Report ranking of Top Public Schools. The 2017 US News ranking is (the UW is ranked #16 in the nation). The US News peer comparison group includes all public universities ranked #25 or better; because of ties, and because not all top-25 universities are in the R1 category, there may be more or fewer than 25 institutions in this peer comparison group each year. (In order to make comparisons across time, historical averages are calculated based on the 2017 US News peer list, not the US News list current at the time.)

Comparisons include undergraduate, graduate, MBA, PharmD, law, medicine, and dentistry tuition rates for both resident and nonresident students. Most data are provided through the (AAUDE). For peer institutions that are not part of AAUDE, we found tuition data on the universities鈥� websites.

For each tuition category, we provide a list of current tuition rates at each institution, along with a chart comparing UW tuition against the peer group average over the past 5 years. This allows you to look at both the UW鈥檚 current rates as well as recent trends, side by side with peers. For example, the UW鈥檚 resident undergraduate tuition rate is well below the peer average, partially due to tuition decreases in the last two years. Nonresident undergraduate tuition rates, on the other hand, have tracked closely with the peer average (remaining within 5% of the average over the past five years).

You can see more in the peer tuition comparison file, and find other comparisons on OPB鈥檚 Peer Comparisons page. Please contact OPB Institutional Analysis at uwir@uw.edu with any questions.

Introducing Peer Finance Dashboards!

Posted on

OPB鈥檚 Institutional Analysis team and UW-IT鈥檚 Enterprise Information, Integration & Analytics unit announce seven , available now in UW Profiles. These new dashboards join four existing peer dashboards. Peer dashboards use data publicly available through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to allow users to compare the UW to peer institutions around the country on a range of student- and finance-focused measures.

With the new finance dashboards, users can compare revenues, expenses, and endowment values at the UW and peer institutions. They can also explore the relative importance of different revenue sources and expense categories across institutions. The expenses story dashboard provides a step-by-step look at the expenses that directly or indirectly support universities鈥� research and instruction missions.

More information about each of the new peer finance dashboards is available through the online documentation. Please feel free to send any questions or comments to uwprofiles@uw.edu.

Higher Ed News Roundup

Posted on

A recent report released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reveals that the United States continues to fall behind in educating its populace. The study shows that the US has dropped to fifth in the percentage of young adults, defined as those between age 25 and 34, who have some sort of higher education degree (46 percent). This drop comes despite the Obama administration鈥檚 stated goal of having the highest proportion of young adults with degrees in the world by 2020. The report also noted that the percentage of students who leave their home countries for college in the US has dropped significantly since 2000, from 25 percent to 19 percent, with more students opting for the UK, Japan and Australia than ever before.

Income-based repayment now most popular higher ed federal aid program: The U.S. Department of Education reports that more student debt is now being repaid through the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) Plan and the Pay as You Earn (PAYE) Plan鈥攁nother form of income-based repayment鈥攖han any other type of repayment. The combination of IBR and PAYE accounts for $188 billion out of a total of $586 billion, a dramatic increase from past years; the percentage of loan dollars in these two programs has doubled since 2013. According to Jason Delisle at edcentral.org (article linked to above), this is both good and bad news. On the one hand, it seems that more students are learning of income-driven repayment plans and are attracted to the affordability they offer. On the other hand, it could be that more borrowers are not expecting to get jobs that would allow them to afford more traditional loan repayment programs.

19.3 million students enrolled in higher education institutions in fall 2015, 340,000 fewer than enrolled in fall 2014, according to released by the National Student Clearinghouse. The drop was most pronounced among for-profit institutions, which saw a decline of over 180,000 enrollees from 2014, and among community colleges, at which 145,000 fewer students enrolled. Given the demographics of the students who are choosing not to enroll鈥攑rimarily full-time community college students and students over the age of 24鈥攔esearchers have attributed the drop in enrollment largely to the improving job market. The enrollment levels of public and private 4-year institutions stayed largely the same; for information about enrollment trends at the UW, please visit UW Profiles鈥� enrollment dashboard.

Report Affirms State Divestment, Not Administrative Bloat, Largely Responsible Tuition Increases

Posted on

础听 by Demos, a New York public policy think tank, attempts to identify the reasons why tuition prices at public four-year institutions have increased over the last decade. The findings reinforce the understanding that declining state support, rather than 鈥渁dministrative bloat,鈥� is the primary cause of tuition increases. Although administrative spending did increase marginally, the authors attribute the slight change to rising health care costs[1] 聽and to new support services required over the past decade 鈥� such as those to support growing technology needs.

The report analyzed data from the and examined research institutions separately from institutions that primarily award bachelor鈥檚 and master’s degrees.

Between 2001 and 2011, state funding per student fell by $3,081聽at research universities and, simultaneously, tuition per student increased 鈥渋n near lockstep,鈥� by $3,628. Consequently, the majority of funding formerly provided by the state is now borne by students and their families.

The Causes of Rising Tuition at Public Research Universities

(taken from Figure 6 in the report)

Causes of rising tuition - research universities

As seen in the figure above, of the tuition hikes at public research universities:

  • 79聽percent is attributable to declining state appropriations,
  • 9 percent is due to higher instruction costs (largely the result of rising health insurance premiums)
  • 6 percent is due to more construction costs, and
  • 6 percent is due to increased administrative spending.

With regards to 鈥渁dministrative bloat鈥� 鈥� which some still view as a key driver of tuition increases 鈥� the report finds that 鈥�the number of executives and administrators has actually slightly decreased relative to the size of the student body鈥� and the average number of total employees per 1,000 students has remained relatively constant over the last decade.

Instead, public institutions are employing more part-time faculty and professional staff (e.g. employees who work in admissions, human resources, information technology, etc.).聽鈥淎ll of these things are necessary to support the growing university,鈥� , the report鈥檚 author.聽 Hiltonsmith also noted that when state funding for higher education declines, colleges can either raise tuition to make up for the forgone聽revenue or look for ways to trim聽expenses.聽 鈥淚f there isn’t a lot of fat to cut, then聽their only option is to raise tuition or lose quality of education.鈥�

[1] On average, the amount spent by public universities to provide health insurance to staff and faculty rose by nearly $2,700 per employee between 2001 and 2011, a 40 percent increase.

A Growing Student Loan Crisis? Maybe Not

Posted on

A new report from the Brookings Institution concludes that student loan borrowers may not be in such a dire situation as media reports commonly suggest.聽 The report, , finds that while student debt levels have risen along with college tuition over the past two decades, college graduates鈥� incomes have kept pace.聽 The authors analyze data on student borrowers over the period 1989-2010.聽 They conclude that education debt has not become a greater burden on borrowing households.

  • Education debt increased most among households with higher levels of educational attainment.聽 Roughly one-quarter of the increase in student debt can be explained by an increase in the number of households with college degrees, especially graduate degrees.聽 Since 1989, student borrowers with graduate degrees saw their average debt level increase from about $10,000 to about $40,000.聽 Over the same time, the debt level for borrowers with bachelor鈥檚 degrees increased by a smaller margin, from $6,000 to $16,000.
  • On average, student borrowers鈥� incomes more than kept pace with increases in student debt.聽 While average household debt increased by about $18,000 between 1992 and 2010, average annual household income for borrowers increased by about $7,400 over that same period.聽 The average increase in earnings would pay for the increase in debt incurred in just 2.4 years.
  • The ratio of monthly debt payments to monthly income has held steady.聽 Between 1992 and 2010, the median borrowing household consistently paid between three and four percent of monthly income toward student debt.聽 The mean monthly payment decreased from 15 percent to 7 percent of income over that period.

Student debt levels have increased over the past two decades.聽 The authors conclude that this is largely driven by tuition increases over that time.聽 However, higher levels of student borrowing also partly reflect an investment in higher levels of education.聽 For the average borrower, that investment pays off in higher incomes.

Average Debt for Graduates Continues to Rise

Posted on

Overall student debt levels of recent bachelor鈥檚 degree recipients continue to rise according to , a new report from the Project on Student Debt at The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS). 聽The report includes 2013 state- and college-level debt data for graduates from colleges that opt to disclose their graduates鈥� debt. However, since very few for-profit colleges choose to disclose debt data, the report鈥檚 figures represent only public and nonprofit colleges.

  • At the national level, 69 percent of graduating seniors had student loans and those that borrowed had an average debt of $28,400 鈥� a 2 percent increase over 2012. For comparison, in 2013, 50 percent of UW undergraduates graduated with debt, and those that borrowed graduated with an average debt load of $21,471.
  • At the state level, borrowers鈥� average debt at graduation ranged from $18,656 to $32,795, and the likelihood of graduating with debt ranged from 43 to 76 percent. In six states, average debt was greater than $30,000; in one state, it was under $20,000. Nearly all the highest debt states were in the Northeast and Midwest, with the lowest debt states in the West and South. In Washington, 58 percent of graduates had debt, and those that borrowed had an average of $24,418 in loans. Debbie Cochrane, research director at TICAS and coauthor of the report, says, 鈥淭he importance of state policy and investment cannot be overstated when it comes to student debt levels.鈥�
  • At the college level, borrowers鈥� average debt at graduation varied widely 鈥� ranging from less than $2,500 to more than $71,000 鈥� and the likelihood of graduating with debt also varied 鈥� running from 10 percent to 100 percent. At nearly one in five (18%) colleges, average debt rose at least 10 percent, while at 7 percent of colleges, average debt decreased by at least 10 percent. In general, colleges with higher costs had higher average debt at graduation, although that wasn鈥檛 always the case.

The authors note that the report鈥檚 data have significant limitations, primarily because colleges are not required to report debt levels for their graduates. Only 57 percent of public and nonprofit bachelor鈥檚 degree-granting colleges provided data, representing 83 percent of graduates in those sectors. And , as mentioned, were excluded because hardly any chose to disclose their graduates鈥� debt.[1] Even colleges that do provide data may understate graduates鈥� debt loads because they do not include transfer students and are often not aware of all private loans.

Thus, the report鈥檚 main recommendation is to get better debt data via federal collection of cumulative student debt data for all schools. The report also makes recommendations about reducing students鈥� need to borrow, helping students make better-informed college decisions, and simplifying .

See the report or TICAS鈥� for more information.

[1] for 2012 graduates of for-profit. four-year colleges show that the vast majority (88%) took out student loans and that borrowers graduated with an average of $39,950 in debt鈥�43 percent more than bachelor鈥檚 recipients in the other sectors. In addition, students at for-profits tend to much more frequently than students in other sectors.

AASCU Releases Latest State Outlook

Posted on

On Thursday, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) released its most .聽 According to the report, state operating support for public 聽four-year colleges and universities is 3.6 percent higher for FY 2015 than it was for FY 2014. Of the 49 states that have passed a budget thus far, support for higher education increased in 43 states and decreased in only 6 states. Of those 6 states that reduced funding, all were under 3 percent: Alaska, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Washington (0.8 percent decrease) and West Virginia.

There was a relatively small amount of variation between states in terms of their year-to-year funding changes. For FY 2015, the spread between the state with the largest gain and that with the largest cut was only a 24 percent鈥攖his is compared to 57 percent, 25 percent and 46 percent, respectively, in FYs 2012, 2013 and 2014. The report notes that this decreased volatility likely indicates 鈥渁 continued post-recession stabilization of states鈥� budgets.鈥�

Charitable contributions to U.S. colleges and universities increased 9 percent in 2013, to $33.8 billion鈥攖he highest recorded in the history of the Council for Aid to Education (CAE) Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) survey. In addition, college and university endowments grew by an average of 11.7 percent in FY 2013, according to a January 2014 study released by the National Association of College and University Business Officers and the Commonfund Institute.聽 This represents a significant improvement over the -0.3 percent return in FY 2012.

The report also describes ten highlights/trends from states鈥� 2014 legislative sessions, those being:

  1. State initiatives linking student access to economic and workforce development goals.
  2. Tuition freezes or increase caps in exchange for state reinvestment鈥攖his occurred in Washington and another example is discussed in .
  3. Performance-based funding systems that attempt to align institutional outcomes with state needs and priorities.
  4. Governor emphasis on efforts to advance state educational attainment goals.
  5. Interest in policies related to vocational and technical education, including allowing community colleges to grant certain four-year degrees (as described in ).
  6. Efforts to develop a common set of expectations for what K-12 students should know in mathematics and language arts.
  7. STEM-related initiatives, including additional funding for STEM scholarships in Washington.
  8. Financial support for the renovating and/or constructing of new campus facilities鈥攗nfortunately, Washington鈥檚 legislature did not pass a capital budget.
  9. Bills allowing individuals to carry guns on public college and university campuses鈥攁s of March 2014, seven states had passed such legislation.
  10. Legislation that extends in-state tuition or, as occurred in Washington, state financial aid to undocumented students.

Other noteworthy policy topics described in the report include:

  • Student financial aid programs鈥攕ome states broadened their programs while others limited them;
  • Online and competency-based education reciprocity agreements;
  • 鈥淧ay It Forward鈥� Funding Schemes; and
  • Consumer protection as it pertains to student recruitment, advertising and financial aid at for-profit colleges.