a student newspaper of the university of tulsa
october 1, 2012 issue 5 ~ volume 98
#1 Harvard University, #1 Princeton University, #3 Yale University, #4 Columbia University, #4 University of Chicago, #6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, #6 Stanford University, #8 Duke University, #8 University of Pennsylvania, #10 California Institute of Technology, #10 Dartmouth College, #12 Northwestern University, #13 Johns Hopkins University, #14 Washington University in St. Louis, #15 Brown University, #15 Cornell University, #17 Rice University, #17 University of Notre Dame, #17 Vanderbilt University, #20 Emory University, #21 Georgetown University, #21 University of California – Berkeley, #23 Carnegie Mellon University, #24 University of California – Los Angeles, #24 University of Southern California, #24 University of Virginia, #27 Wake Forest U n i v e r s i t y, #28 Tufts University, #29 University of Michigan – Ann Arbor, #30 University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, #31 Boston College, #32 New York University, #33 Brandeis University, #33 College of William and Mary, #33 University of Rochester, #36 Georgia Institute of Technology, #37 Case Western R e s e r v e University, #38 Lehigh Universit y, #38 University of California – Davis, #38 University of California – San Diego, #41 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, #41 University of California – Santa Barbara, #41 University of Wisconsin – Madison, #44 University of California – Irvine, #44 University of Miami, #46 Pennsylvania State University – University Park, #46 University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign, #46 University of Texas – Austin, #46 University of Washington, #46 Yeshiva University, #51 Boston University, #51 George Washington University, #51 Tulane University, #54 Pepperdine University, #54 University of Florida, #56 Northeastern University, #56 Ohio State University – Columbus, #58 Fordham University, #58 Southern Methodist U n i v e r s i t y, #58 Syracuse University, #58 University of Maryland – College Park, #58 University of Pittsburgh, #63 University of Connecticut, #63 University of Georgia, #65 Purdue University – West Lafayette, #65 Texas A&M University – College Station, #65 Worcester Polytechnic Institute, # 6 8 Brigham Young University – Provo, #68 Clemson University, #68 Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey – New Brunswick, # 6 8 University of Minnesota – Twin Cities, #72 Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y, # 7 2 University of Iowa, #72 Virginia Tech, #75 Stevens Institute of Technology, #75 University of Delaware, #77 American U n i v e r s i t y, #77 Baylor University, # 7 7 Col orad o School of Mines, #77 SUNY College of Env i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n c e and Forestry, #77 University of Alabama, #77 University of California – Santa Cruz, #83 Clark University, #83 Drexel University, #83 Indiana University – Bloomington, #83 Marquette University, #83 University of Denver, #83 #89 Auburn University, #89 Binghamton University – SUNY, #89 Miami University – University of Tulsa, Oxford, #92 St. Louis University, #92 Stony Brook University – SUNY, #92 Texas Christian University, #92 University of San Diego, #92 University of Vermont, #97 Florida State University, #97 University of Colorado – Boulder, #97 University of Massachusetts – Amherst, #97 University of Missouri
Tulsa seeks top 50 status Oscar Ho Steven Buchele Student Writers
Fall in rankings considered insignificant by TU administration—plans to move up still intact.
I
n this year’s U.S. News and World Report rankings of best colleges, released Sept. 12, the University of Tulsa dropped from 75th to 83rd. Although this may have been unexpected, the administration has downplayed it as a source of concern. The drop in the rankings is statistically insignificant, returning President Steadman Upham said: “(the drop) was a result of a couple of decimal points.” TU appears to have dropped seven places, but because many institutions tie for spots, the drop is actually closer to two or three places, according to Provost Roger Blais. This year, TU shares a ranking with six other schools. Record enrollment has mostly contributed to the drop. The percentage of classes with fewer than 20 students dropped from 70 percent to 60 percent, while the percentage of classes with more than 50 students rose from 1 percent to 2.7 percent. Most of these large classes are introductory math and science classes like calculus, physics, chemistry and geosciences. However, in all other categories measured by U.S. News, the University of Tulsa has either remained constant or improved. In fact, TU’s undergraduate reputation, historically the hardest score for the university to influence, rose slightly over the past year. Changes and improvements In many ways more important to the administration than the statistics from U.S. News is the experience that students have at TU, like student-professor interactions. TU regularly scores very high on the National Survey of Student Engagement and the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement, two studies aimed at determining how well
students can learn from and engage with their professors. While TU has long had the goal of becoming a “Top 50 School,” Upham sees this as “a proxy statement for improving the university for students and providing a stronger education.” While the rankings are useful benchmarks for TU, they aren’t the “velvet handcuffs they are for many institutions,” said Dr. Kayla Acebo, Vice President of Public Relations. TU does not focus on rankings as its sole measurement of success, she said. Rather, TU believes that providing a quality education with a fantastic student environment will naturally raise the university’s ranking. The University is planning to fix some issues raised by the rankings, however. Class size particularly is something Upham would like to work on. “We’re going to look into the scheduling of classes, like what rooms are being used and what kind of classes are being taught in them,” says Upham. “Some classes like orchestra or choir require a large enrollment, but we want to work with the large lecture style classes.” This could mean hiring new faculty. However, most of the proposed improvements do not aim to influence the rankings directly. The School of Community Medicine, a joint venture between the University of Oklahoma and TU, is meant to both help the community in the development of medical professionals and “really build greater strength in the science department,” Upham said. The West Park development, a partnership between TU and the KendallWhittier community, stemmed from TU’s commitment to service and has helped stabilize the Kendall Whittier neighborhood. The new Henry Zarrow Center for Arts and Education—a collaboration between TU and the City of Tulsa—will provide research, conference and teaching facilities to take advantage of some of the great treasures at the Gilcrease Museum. Additionally, TU is committed to keeping its older buildings on par with the rest of campus. The recent remodeling of historic Tyrell Hall has transformed it into
How are the rankings calculated?
The U.S. News and World Report rankings can seem esoteric, perhaps even temperamental. Despite this, they are based on a mathematical system. Below is a table of the factors U.S. News takes into account and the weight each category and subfactor is assigned. Category
category weight (%)
Subfactor
subfactor weight (%)
Undergraduate reputation
22.5
Peer assessment survey
66.7
High school counselors ratings
33.3
Student selectivity
Faculty resources
Graduation and retention rates
15
20
20
Acceptance rate
10
High school class standing in top 10%
40
Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT and composite ACT scores
50
Faculty compensation
35
Percent faculty with top terminal degree in their field
15
Percent full-time faculty
5
Student/faculty ratio
5
Class size, 1-19 student
30
Class size, 50+ students
10
Average graduation rate
80
Average freshman retention rate
20
Financial resources
10
Financial resources per student
100
Alumni giving
5
Average alumni giving rate
100
Graduation rate performance
7.5
Graduation rate performance
100
one of the most “high tech” buildings on campus. Other improvements on the horizon may include the addition of a new large dormitory to accommodate the University’s growing residential population. Work may also begin to more efficiently linking far-flung parts of campus, such as Keplinger Hall. “Access to the northeast area of campus is just not as easy as we would like it to be,” says Upham. He would like to see the area become more accessible so that it feels more like “part of the campus.” “It is one thing to look at the difference between this year and last, but the really profound thing is seeing the difference between 1997 and now,” said Acebo. 15 years ago, TU was ranked a third or fourth-tier university, and was not even given a ranking in the U.S. News. Since then, the university has risen further and faster than any other institution in that time. Current TU students are attend-
ing a school that Upham says is “as good or even superior” to famous coastal institutions. Upham attributes this massive jump in rankings to a comprehensive 10year plan enacted by the board of trustees, a massive jump in quality of the student body, and an “outstanding” faculty. After the 10-year plan Looking forward, Upham and Acebo are anticipating more improvements to TU. The Board of Trustees’ 10-year plan is nearly completed, though there have been several recent additions. As the university has always done, it intends to continue improving academics, student life and resources for academic study. Several longterm strategies that the administration may pursue include a renewed focus on growing endowments for scholarships, faculty positions and student facilities. L. Duane Wilson, chairman of the board of trustees, underscored
Upham and Acebo’s optimism last Tuesday when he spoke to the Student Association. Wilson said the board has held “a long-term strategy” of “pursuing recognition in the top 50” domestic universities. According to Wilson, there is “no question” that this strategy will continue, and he further suggested that the dismissal of Dr. Geoffrey Orsak from the presidency in no way indicates that the Board intends to go “in a different direction.” The Board’s decadelong building plan made a decisive mark. As Wilson points out, “10 or 15 years ago,” current students “wouldn’t recognize the place.” “We’re very proud of the progress that we’ve made and our intention is to continue along the path that got us here,” he said. With these continuing improvements, the administration is sure the rankings will follow. “We have always had ambitious intentions,” Upham said, “and we keep getting better and better.”