Increasing our six-year graduation rate to our goal of 70% increases our national rank 64 spots, from 168 to 104.
Increasing average faculty salary by 5.6% from $95.7K to $101K increases our rank by 7 spots, from 168 to 161. Increasing this value to $111K increases the rank further, from 168 to 158.
Increasing our peer score from 2.9 to 3.0 improves our rank from 168 to 161. If we improve our peer score to 3.7 like our aspirational peers our rank jumps to 126. See appendix and this report for comparable and aspirational peers.
Increasing alumni giving by 3 percentage points from 12% to 15% increases our rank by 7 spots. Increasing it to 17% (Texas A&M rate), the rank improves further, from 168 to 158.
Improving the proportion of classes with less than 20 students to 45% (University of South Florida rate) increases our rank from 168 to 158. Increasing this value two more percentage points boosts ranking to 150. show 5 influential factors to increase UH national ranking. In order of greatest impact they include six-year graduation rates, faculty salary, peer score, alumni giving rate, and proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students. Table 1 below outlines key findings with a baseline simulated rank of 168 (see next section for discussion). Reaching aspirational peer values shows UH can rank as good as 57. With more modest goal setting, UH can improve ranking to 118.
U.S. News Factor
2020 Value
Peer/Goal Value
New Rank
Rank Improvement
Graduation Rate
58%
70%
104
64
Average Faculty Salaries
$95.7K
$101K
161
7
—Average Faculty Salaries
$95.7K
$111K
158
10
Peer Reputation Score
2.9
3
161
7
—Peer Reputation Score
2.9
3.7
126
42
Alumni Giving
12%
15%
161
7
—Alumni Giving
12%
17%
158
10
Proportion of Classes < 20
45%
158
10
—Proportion of Classes < 20
47%
150
18
Improvement to all aspirational peers values
57
111
Modest improvement to all values
118
50
Hanover Ranking Simulator
The Hanover Ranking Simulator2 See video tutorial for the ranking simulator. offers “what if” simulations allowing institutions to adjust ranking factor values to see where the biggest impact can be made to improve their National University Rankings. Figure 1 shows a screenshot of what the simulator looks like.
Figure 1. Ranking Simulator Baseline for UH 2020 National Ranking.
The simulator for the University of Houston starts with a simulated rank of 168.3 Actual National Universities Rank for Issue Year 2020 is 185. Adjusting the values shows how this rank can change in different scenarios. It is a reconstruction of the data used by U.S. News & World Report (USNWR). An exact reconstruction is not possible because USNWR use proprietary data and methodology not publicly available. This parallel rank is the baseline rank for this analysis.
Findings
In this analysis, I recorded the change in rank for every unit change in factors available in the simulator. Figure 2 graphically represents how UH’s rank changes by each factor. Table 2 lists the most impactful factors based on the slope of change in rank (dashed-lines in Figure 2).4 Level of impact is measured by the standardized slope for each factor. More negative values indicate steeper increases in national ranking. Factors are measured in different scales (counts, percents, scores, ratios). I scaled the factors to have a mean of zero and standard deviation one to facilitate comparing different scales.
Figure 2. Simulated Rank by Adjusting Each Individual Ranking Factor.
Table 2. Ranking Factors Sorted by Most Influential Increases in Rank.
Factor
Slope
Std. Slope
Current Value
Max Value
Max Rank
Six-year graduation rate (%)
-281.10
-39.34
54%
100%
38
Faculty salary (thousands)
-0.50
-32.94
$95.7K
$310K
65
Peer score (1-5)
-45.33
-30.83
2.9
5
74
Alumni giving (%)
-100.20
-28.47
12%
100%
82
Class size < 20 (%)
-83.80
-15.23
25%
74%
126
Median SAT
-0.09
-12.73
1220
1570
134
Financial resources (thousands)
-0.18
-7.08
$21.4K
$110.5K
150
Faculty w/ terminal degree in field (%)
-116.70
-4.95
89%
95%
161
1-year retention (%)
-76.79
-4.69
85%
97%
158
Percent freshman in Top 10% (%)
-15.62
-4.64
32%
90%
158
Class size > 50 (%)
46.60
4.73
24%
4%
158
Each data point in Figure 2 shows a change in rank by a change in factor value. More data points represent more incremental change. Less data points show less opportunity for change in rank. The dotted line represents the slope or rate of change for these factors. Visually, we see six-year graduation rates5 Six-year graduation rates are the most recent 3-year averages. Graduation and retention rates comprise 22% of the overall ranking as of Issue Year 2020. Individually, six-year graduation rates alone make-up 17.6% of the overall rank. Visit US News 2020 Ranking Methodology for more details. make the biggest impact in ranking. If we increase our six-year graduation rate by one percentage point (55%), our rank would jump to 161. If we increase it to 60%, our rank jumps to 141. If we increase our rank to our goal of 70%, our rank would jump to 104 by this factor alone.6 See Appendix for each individual data point. There are many and large gains in focusing on our six-year graduation rate relative to other factors.
Faculty salary7 Faculty salary/compensation is a component of the Faculty Resources factor (20% of overall rank). Faculty salary by itself makes up 7% of the overall ranking. is the second most impactful factor according to the simulator. If we increase faculty salary from $95.7 thousand to $101 thousand, our rank would increase seven spots from 168 to 161. Increasing average faculty salary another $10 thousand would bump the simulated rank to 158 (see appendix for more values).
Improving our Peer Score8 Peer score is 20% of the overall rank. is the third most influential factor in improving our ranking. Increasing our peer score from 2.9 to 3.0 increases our rank to 161. Increasing our peer score to 3.4 would increase our simulated rank to 141.
Alumni giving9 Alumni giving is 5% of overall rank. makes up 5% of the overall rank. Increasing alumni giving from 12% to 15% increases the rank from 168 to 161. If we more than double our giving to 27%, the overall rank could jump 18 spots to 150. Increasing this figure to 39%, or more than triple our current alumni giving, will bump UH’s rank to 135.
Percent of class size less than 2010 The class size indicator is 8% of the overall rank. It belongs to Faculty Resources, which also includes percent of faculty that are full-time, percent faculty with Ph.D., faculty compensation, and student-faculty ratio. All faculty resources together is 20% of overall rank. is a component of the class size indicator under Faculty Resources. Increasing the proportion of classes under 20 from 25% to 30% increases the rank from 168 to 161. Nearly doubling this proportion to 47% increases the rank to 150.
The remaining factors11 Median SAT, financial resources, percent faculty with terminal degree (Ph.D.), 1-year retention rates, percent freshmen in Top 10%, percent of classes greater than 50. are not as influential in increasing our national rank. This can be seen two ways: (1) relatively flat slopes in Figure 2 and (2) fewer and spread-out data points that indicate a need for a bigger change to see a small return in rank.
Adjusting Multiple Values in the Simulator
Table 3 shows UH’s rank with 2020 values, values selected from different comparison institutions,12 See appendix Figures 3 to Figure 8 for comparison institutions. and more modest values.
Table 3. UH Rank by Simulated Values.
Factor
2020 Value
Comparison Institutions
Modest Value
Six-year graduation rate (%)
54%
70%
61%
Faculty salary (thousands)
$95.7K
$110K
$100K
Peer score (1-5)
2.9
3.7
3.1
Alumni giving (%)
12%
17%
15%
Class size < 20 (%)
25%
45%
30%
Median SAT
1220
Financial resources (thousands)
$21.4K
Faculty w/ terminal degree in field (%)
89%
1-year retention (%)
85%
Percent freshman in Top 10% (%)
32%
Class size > 50 (%)
24%
12%
National Rank
168
57
118
If we were to reach our six-year graduation rate goal of 70%, increase faculty salary by $14.3 thousand, increase our peer score to 3.7, bump alumni giving to 17%, and increase percent of class size with less than 20 students to 45% like the University of South Florida, UH could have a National Rank of 57. That’s an increase of 111 rank spots. If we were to set more achievable goals13 I chose 61% for six-year graduation rate to reflect our current single-cohort graduation rate even though it is not yet reflected in our 3-year average. outlined in the modest values column, we could achieve a rank of 118.
Conclusion
In this analysis, I recommend 5 factors UH can focus towards increasing our National University Rank. I chose these factors based on which showed the greatest potential for increasing our rank using the Hanover Ranking Simulator. They are:
Six-year graduation rate
Faculty salary
Peer score
Alumni giving rate
Percent of classes < 20 students
I analyzed how our rank would change if we had values similar to our comparison peers and how our rank would change if we made more achievable goals. I found our rank would be as good as 57 in the best case scenario. I also found our rank would be as good as 118 if we set more modest goals. In the modest scenario, we would increase our ranking by 50 spots.
It is important to remember this analysis is based on the most recent 2020 USNWR National Ranking simulated data. USNWR is a relative ranking system. This means it is susceptible not only to changes in ranking methodology, but as a relative scale our rank is dependent on the number of institutions being ranked. Although we did not under perform between 2019 and 2020 ranking years, our absolute rank dropped because USNWR introduced new and more competitive institutions that were not previously ranked due to a change in the Carnegie Classification System.14Visit this link to see the changes between 2019 and 2020. See section titled Ranking Categories. This analysis is valid for the most recent 2020 rank and it assumes every other institution does not change in their rank position.
Appendix
Table 4. UH Rank by Simulated Factor Values.
Factor
Value
Simulated Rank
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.54
168
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.55
161
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.57
158
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.59
150
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.60
141
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.62
134
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.64
126
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.65
118
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.67
113
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.69
109
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.70
104
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.72
95
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.74
91
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.75
85
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.77
80
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.79
78
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.80
74
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.82
70
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.84
67
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.86
65
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.87
61
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.89
56
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.91
52
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.93
50
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.94
46
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.96
44
Six-year graduation rate (%)
0.98
41
Six-year graduation rate (%)
1.00
38
Peer score (1-5)
2.90
168
Peer score (1-5)
3.00
161
Peer score (1-5)
3.10
158
Peer score (1-5)
3.30
150
Peer score (1-5)
3.40
141
Peer score (1-5)
3.50
134
Peer score (1-5)
3.70
126
Peer score (1-5)
3.80
118
Peer score (1-5)
3.90
113
Peer score (1-5)
4.10
110
Peer score (1-5)
4.20
104
Peer score (1-5)
4.30
95
Peer score (1-5)
4.50
91
Peer score (1-5)
4.60
85
Peer score (1-5)
4.80
80
Peer score (1-5)
4.90
78
Peer score (1-5)
5.00
74
Financial resources (thousands)
21.40
168
Financial resources (thousands)
29.40
161
Financial resources (thousands)
57.40
158
Financial resources (thousands)
110.50
150
Alumni giving (%)
0.12
168
Alumni giving (%)
0.15
161
Alumni giving (%)
0.20
161
Alumni giving (%)
0.21
158
Alumni giving (%)
0.27
150
Alumni giving (%)
0.28
151
Alumni giving (%)
0.33
142
Alumni giving (%)
0.39
135
Alumni giving (%)
0.45
126
Alumni giving (%)
0.51
118
Alumni giving (%)
0.58
113
Alumni giving (%)
0.64
112
Alumni giving (%)
0.71
107
Alumni giving (%)
0.78
98
Alumni giving (%)
0.85
91
Alumni giving (%)
0.93
85
Alumni giving (%)
1.00
82
Median SAT
1220.00
168
Median SAT
1260.00
161
Median SAT
1340.00
158
Median SAT
1410.00
150
Median SAT
1490.00
141
Median SAT
1570.00
134
Faculty salary (thousands)
95.70
168
Faculty salary (thousands)
101.00
161
Faculty salary (thousands)
111.00
158
Faculty salary (thousands)
120.00
150
Faculty salary (thousands)
130.00
141
Faculty salary (thousands)
140.00
134
Faculty salary (thousands)
150.00
126
Faculty salary (thousands)
170.00
118
Faculty salary (thousands)
180.00
113
Faculty salary (thousands)
190.00
110
Faculty salary (thousands)
200.00
104
Faculty salary (thousands)
210.00
95
Faculty salary (thousands)
220.00
91
Faculty salary (thousands)
230.00
85
Faculty salary (thousands)
240.00
85
Faculty salary (thousands)
250.00
78
Faculty salary (thousands)
270.00
74
Faculty salary (thousands)
280.00
71
Faculty salary (thousands)
290.00
68
Faculty salary (thousands)
310.00
65
Class size < 20 (%)
0.25
168
Class size < 20 (%)
0.30
161
Class size < 20 (%)
0.38
158
Class size < 20 (%)
0.47
150
Class size < 20 (%)
0.56
141
Class size < 20 (%)
0.65
134
Class size < 20 (%)
0.74
126
Class size > 50 (%)
0.24
168
Class size > 50 (%)
0.17
161
Class size > 50 (%)
0.04
158
1-year retention (%)
0.85
168
1-year retention (%)
0.89
161
1-year retention (%)
0.97
158
Faculty w/ terminal degree in field (%)
0.89
168
Faculty w/ terminal degree in field (%)
0.95
161
Percent freshman in Top 10% (%)
0.32
168
Percent freshman in Top 10% (%)
0.50
161
Percent freshman in Top 10% (%)
0.90
158
Student-faculty ratio
22.00
168
Student-faculty ratio
15.00
161
Full-time faculty (%)
0.84
168
Full-time faculty (%)
1.00
168
Figure 3. Select Aspirational Peers. Tip: Zoom to see figures.
