Methodology: Undergraduate Ranking Criteria and Weights

The U.S. News college rankings 2010 edition, published on usnews.com on Aug. 19, 2009, are based on several key measures of quality, described below. U.S. News uses these measures to capture the various dimensions of academic quality at each college. The measures fall into seven broad categories: peer assessment; graduation and retention rates; faculty resources (for example, class size); student selectivity (for example, average admissions test scores of incoming students); financial resources; alumni giving; and, only for national universities and liberal arts colleges, graduation rate performance. The indicators include both input measures, which reflect the quality of students, faculty, and other resources used in education, and outcome measures, which capture the results of the education an individual receives.

Scores for each measure are weighted as shown to arrive at a final overall score. A more detailed explanation of the ranking indicators and methods appears below in our methodology and our definitions of ranking criteria.

This table below shows the relative percentage weights assigned to each ranking category and subfactor for the variables used in the rankings for national universities, liberal arts colleges, universities-master's, and baccalaureate colleges.

Definitions of Ranking Criteria

Acceptance rate. The ratio of the number of students admitted to the number of applicants for fall 2008 admission. The acceptance rate is equal to the total number of students admitted divided by the total number of applicants. Both the applications and acceptances counted only first-time, first-year students. A lower acceptance rate scores higher in the ranking model.

Average alumni giving rate. The average percentage of undergraduate alumni of record who donated money to the college or university. Alumni of record are former full- or part-time students who received an undergraduate degree and for whom the college or university has a current address. Graduates who earned only a graduate degree are excluded. Undergraduate alumni donors are alumni with undergraduate degrees from an institution who made one or more gifts for either current operations or capital expenses during the specified academic year. The alumni giving rate is calculated by dividing the number of alumni donors during a given academic year by the number of alumni of record for that same year. These two separate alumni giving rates were then averaged for the 2007 and 2008 academic years. The percentage of alumni giving serves as a proxy for how satisfied students are with the school. A higher alumni giving rate percentage scores better in the ranking model than a lower alumni giving rate.

Average freshman retention rate. The percentage of first-year freshmen who returned to the same college or university the following fall. Average freshman retention rate indicates the average proportion of the first-year classes entering from 2004 through 2007 who returned the following fall. If a school submits fewer than four years of freshman retention rate data, then the average is based on the number of years that are submitted. A higher average freshman retention rate scores better in the ranking model than a lower rate.

Average graduation rate. The percentage of entering freshmen who graduated within a six-year period or less, averaged over the classes entering from 1999 through 2002. (Note: This excludes students who transferred into the school.) If a school submits fewer than four years of graduation rate data, then the average is based on the number of years that are submitted. A higher average graduation rate scores better in the ranking model than a lower graduation rate.

Class size, 1-19 students. The percentage of undergraduate classes, excluding class subsections, with fewer than 20 students enrolled during fall 2008. A larger percentage of small classes scores higher in the ranking model.

Class size, 50+ students. The percentage of undergraduate classes, excluding class subsections, with 50 students or more enrolled during fall 2008. A smaller percentage of large classes scores higher in the ranking model.

Expenditures per student. Financial resources are measured by the average spending per full-time-equivalent student on instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, and operations and maintenance (for public institutions only) during the 2007 and 2008 fiscal years. The number of full-time-equivalent students is equal to the number of full-time students plus one third of the number of part-time students. (Note: This includes both undergraduate and graduate students.) We first scaled the public service and research values by the percentage of full-time-equivalent undergraduate students attending the school. Next, we added in total instruction, academic support, student services, institutional support, and operations and maintenance (for public institutions only) and then divided by the number of full-time-equivalent students. After calculating this value, we applied a logarithmic transformation to the spending per full-time-equivalent student, prior to standardizing the value. This calculation process was done for all schools. If a school submits fewer than two years of expenditures per student, then the average is based on the one year that is submitted. Higher expenditures per student score better in the ranking model than lower expenditures.

Faculty compensation. The average faculty pay and benefits are adjusted for regional differences in cost of living. This includes full-time assistant, associate, and full professors. The values are taken for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years and then averaged. (The regional differences in cost of living are taken from indexes from Runzheimer International.) If a school submits fewer than two years of faculty salary data, then the average is based on the one year that is submitted. Higher average faculty salaries after adjusting for regional cost of living score better in the ranking model.

Faculty with Ph.D.'s or top terminal degree. The percentage of full-time faculty members with a doctorate or the highest degree possible in their field or specialty during the 2008-2009 academic year. A larger proportion of full-time faculty with the top terminal degree in their field scores better in the ranking model than a lower proportion.

Graduation rate performance. The difference between the actual six-year graduation rate for students entering in fall 2002 and the predicted graduation rate. The predicted graduation rate is based upon characteristics of the entering class, as well as characteristics of the institution. If a school's actual graduation rate is higher than the predicted rate, then the school is enhancing achievement or is outperforming. This measure is included in the rankings for schools in the national universities and liberal arts colleges categories only. The more a school's actual graduation rate is greater than the U.S. News predicted rate, the better it does in the ranking model.

High school class standing. The proportion of students enrolled for the academic year beginning in fall 2008 who graduated in the top 10 percent (for national universities and liberal arts colleges) or 25 percent (master's and baccalaureate colleges) of their high school class. A higher proportion of students from either the top 10 percent or top 25 percent of their high school class scores better in the ranking model.

Peer assessment. How the school is regarded by administrators at peer institutions. A school's peer assessment score is determined by surveying the presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions (or equivalent positions) at institutions in the school's category. Each individual was asked to rate peer schools' undergraduate academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Those individuals who did not know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly were asked to mark "don't know." A school's score is the average score of all the respondents who rated it. Responses of "don't know" counted neither for nor against a school. The survey was conducted in spring 2009, and 48 percent of those surveyed responded, up from 46 percent the previous year. A higher average peer assessment score does better in the ranking model than a lower per assessment score.

Proportion of full-time faculty. The proportion of the 2008-2009 full-time-equivalent faculty that is full time. The number of full-time-equivalent faculty is equal to the number of full-time faculty plus one third of the number of part-time faculty. (Note: We do not include faculty in preclinical and clinical medicine; administrative officers with titles such as dean of students, librarian, registrar, or coach, even though they may devote part of their time to classroom instruction and may have faculty status; undergraduate or graduate students who are teaching assistants or teaching fellows; faculty on leave without pay; or replacement faculty for those faculty members on sabbatical leave.) To calculate this percentage, the total full-time faculty is divided by the full-time-equivalent faculty (full-time equivalent faculty is full-time faculty plus one third of part-time faculty). A higher proportion of faculty who are full time scores better in the ranking model than a lower proportion.

SAT/ACT scores. Average test scores on both the Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT and Composite ACT of all enrolled first-time, first-year students entering in fall 2008 are combined. Before being used as a ranking indicator, the scores from both tests are converted to the percentile of the national distribution corresponding to that school's scores on the Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT and the Composite ACT. The SAT Writing section of the SAT was not used in the ranking model. In order to better represent the entire entering class, we are now using a value that takes into account the values of both the Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT and the Composite ACT of all entering students. Previously, we used only the scores of the test that had the majority of students taking it. A higher average entering class test score on the Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT and Composite ACT is better in the ranking model.

Student/faculty ratio. The ratio of full-time-equivalent students to full-time-equivalent faculty during the fall of 2008, as reported by the school. Note: This excludes faculty and students of law, medical, business, and other stand-alone graduate or professional programs in which faculty teach virtually only graduate-level students. Faculty numbers also exclude graduate or undergraduate students who are teaching assistants. A lower student-to-faculty ratio scores higher in the ranking model than a higher ratio.