The Complex Interplay Between Classification and Ranking of Colleges and Universities: Should the Berlin Principles Apply Equally to Classification?

Abstract

‘Classification’ and ‘ranking’ are tools for comparing colleges and universities, albeit for different purposes. Although ‘classification’ focuses on identifying similarities rather than ordering institutions, it is closely intertwined with ‘ranking’, whether directly through its content, structure, and procedures, or indirectly through the ways it is used and understood by the wider community of users (e.g., researchers, policymakers, institutional leaders, etc.). For this reason, many of the standards, protocols, and best practices established for ranking systems apply as well to the case of classification. This paper examines the interplay between ‘classification’ and ‘ranking’ in some detail, and applies the Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions which were adopted in May 2006 to the case of classification, focusing on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.

Notes

1. ‘Higher Education Institutions’ (or HEIs) and ‘colleges and universities’ are used interchangeably in this paper to refer to degree‐granting postsecondary (i.e., tertiary) educational institutions.

2. Albert Einstein is reported to have said: “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”

3. Although these labels are closely identified with the Carnegie Classification, the first published use of the classification used much more descriptive labels for these categories: Heavy emphasis on research, Moderate emphasis on research, Moderate emphasis on doctoral programs, and Limited emphasis on doctoral programs (Carnegie Commission, 1971). The shortened labels with Roman numerals – and the hierarchy that they would come to reify – were not introduced until 1973.

4. It should be noted that some of the documentation accompanying the first published version of the classification (Carnegie Commission, 1973) indicates at least an implicit understanding that the categories reflected a quality component.

5. Five new all‐inclusive classifications are organized around three questions: what is taught, to whom, and in what setting? In addition, an ‘elective’ (i.e., voluntary) classification related to community engagement was also introduced. More information about the new system is available at:⟨http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications⟩.

6. The apparent contradiction, of course, is because the classification is based not on the absolute number of undergraduates in residence, but the percentage.

7. At one point, the American Council on Education (ACE) agreed to assume responsibility for the Carnegie Classification. But despite ACE's stature and good standing, this shift proved infeasible for an organization with an institutional membership structure, and the classification came back home to the Foundation.