The recent decision by the American Council on Education and the Carnegie Foundation to simplify research university classifications, reducing metrics to merely two criteria for R-1 status, raises concerns about its implications. Institutions must now invest $50 million annually on research and confer 70 doctoral degrees to qualify as top-tier. This shift neglects holistic evaluations of research activity, potentially skewing public understanding and undermining innovation. The historical context of the Carnegie classification, originally designed to support research and policy through numerous indicators, illustrates the risks associated with oversimplifying these important classifications.
The simplification of research classifications by ACE could distort perceptions of university excellence and incentivize short-term metrics over long-term research quality.
Historically, the Carnegie classification supported research and policymaking; the recent changes risk undermining this by favoring institutions that meet simplified criteria.
Collection
[
|
...
]