ACT launches ‘PreACT’ for fall 2016

ACT announced yesterday the launch of PreACT™, a 10th grade multiple-choice assessment designed to help students prepare for the ACT® and provide early feedback on their potential performance on the exam. The paper-based test will be available to schools, districts and states starting in fall 2016 and appears to be filling a gap left with the 2014 departure of the PLAN test from among the suite of ACT products targeted to college planning.

“We developed PreACT to meet a need for a 10th grade measurement and guidance tool that can be administered easily and affordably and that offers fast, helpful results,” said Suzana Delanghe, ACT chief commercial officer. “The introduction of this new assessment is a direct result of ACT listening to what our customers are telling us and taking action on their feedback.”

While obviously hoping to offer better competition for the College Board’s new suite of assessments than the more problematic ACT Aspire, PreACT is patterned after the ACT—only shorter and with fewer questions. Unlike the PSAT, there will be no “national” test dates and it can be administered any time during the school year.

“We are still completing research to determine the exact length of PreACT, but testing time will likely be in the neighborhood of 2 hours,” wrote Edward Colby, ACT’s senior director for media and public relations in an email response to questions. 

Like the ACT PLAN, the PreACT will cover the same four subjects that appear on the ACT: English/language arts, math, reading and science. It will not include a writing section, which is optional on the ACT. The format and 1-36 scoring scale will be the same as the ACT in order to give students some idea what the test is like while suggesting how well they are likely to do the following year on a complete ACT.

“PreACT questions will come from retired ACT tests, so students who take it will experience actual ACT test questions,” added Colby. “Questions will be selected to predict ACT test performance.”

Similar to ACT reports, PreACT score reports will offer a broad view of students’ college and career readiness, identifying academic strengths and areas for improvement. They also potentially may be used by ACT to generate a data file on the individual test-taker starting in the 10th grade, which could in turn be sold to colleges always in the market for this kind of information.

Priced at $12, the Pre-ACT undercuts the per-test cost of the PSAT by 20 percent and offers a much more economical alternative to ACT Aspire.  According to ACT, fee waivers are not offered this year, but are being considered for the future. 

With the College Board anxious for an earlier entrance in the market by offering the PSAT 10 and the PSAT 8/9 in addition to the PSAT/NMSQT, the emergence of a yet another competing test targeted to high school sophomores has got to be a bit of an annoyance. High schools are now faced with the decision whether to stick with one product line or offer opportunities for students to experiment with both products by administering the PreACT in 10th grade and the PSAT/NMSQT in the 11th grade. 

But the PSAT still has the advantage of being linked to the National Merit® Scholarship Program, and this is a powerful incentive for schools to offer the test to juniors hoping to qualify for this opportunity.

And what becomes of the ACT Aspire, which a number of schools and school districts have already scheduled for this fall? 

According to ACT, Aspire is not going anywhere. A computer-based test, Aspire was designed for schools and states that want to assess and track student readiness starting in elementary school and moving up to high school, while PreACT is designed “only to help prepare 10th grade students for the ACT and get them thinking about what careers they might like to pursue.”

Colby explains, “PreACT is not a replacement for ACT Aspire. These are two very different assessments designed for different purposes.” 

In other words, schools and school districts are welcome to pay for and administer both.

New Carnegie classification system adds 30 national universities to USNWR rankings

.

The new classifications did not go over well at RPI.

For those who routinely follow news in higher education, last month’s release of the 2015 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education was huge.  There was controversy and quite a bit of excitement as new metrics produced under a program now sponsored by Indiana University (with support from the Lumina Foundation) resulted in new classifications—some more prestigious and some less so.

Little known to the general public, Carnegie classifications guide how analysts, government officials, foundations, and academics perceive more than 4,600 colleges and universities—all accredited, degree-granting institutions in the U.S. Although the framework primarily serves educational and research purposes, it has many other uses for anyone wanting to identify groups of “roughly comparable” institutions.

For example, these classifications provide the framework for how U.S. News groups colleges and universities for its annual rankings. Institutions that Carnegie classifies as “doctoral universities” are those awarding at least 20 doctorates for research or scholarship in an academic year, not counting law or medical degrees. These are labeled by U.S. News as “National Universities” and are ranked within that category.

And make no mistake—these kinds of distinctions are closely monitored by the postsecondary community. According to Inside Higher Ed, these tags can send some institutions into “fits of anger or excitement over perceived insult or approval for how they are classified compared to their peers” in large part because of how the classifications are used for rankings.

Additionally, the designations have importance for both undergrads and graduate students interested in attending schools with high-profile research programs.  Top-tier Carnegie classification also “amplifies the ability to attract top faculty and more research dollars” according to a press release from Temple University announcing its elevation to an R1 research institution.

Under the 2015 Classification, there are now 335 doctoral universities subdivided into R1 or highest research activity (the elite corps of research institutions), R2 or higher research activity and R3 moderate research activity. They break out as follows:

• 113 R3s including Shenandoah University and the 2015 addition of Liberty University
• 107 R2s including Catholic University, the College of William and Mary, Howard University, Old Dominion University,  UMBC and the addition of American University
• 115 R1s including George Washington University, Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland-College Park, University of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Tech and the addition of George Mason University

Eight schools that had been R1 in the previous classification dropped to R2 including Dartmouth College, as well as Mississippi State, Montana State, North Dakota State, Rockefeller University (NY), the University of Alabama in Huntsville,Yeshiva, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI).

Not surprisingly, the change in status did not go over too well at RPI or with some Dartmouth undergrads and alums who are understandably proud of Dartmouth’s emphasis on the undergraduate experience and associated research programs.

“While a single number is probably fun for public relations, the real issue is whether a particular institution is effective for the purposes of any individual,” wrote John Lombardi, director of the Center for Measuring University Performance, in an email to The Dartmouth.  “Students, researchers, business, employers, graduate schools, all look at somewhat different characteristics in the type of high quality college or university that Dartmouth is.”

In the meantime, fifteen schools moved up from R2 to R1:

Boston College

Clemson University

Florida International University

George Mason University

Kansas State University

Northeastern University

Syracuse University

Temple University

Texas Tech

University of Texas at Arlington

University of Texas at Dallas

University of Mississippi

University of North Texas

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

West Virginia University

But these were not the only notable shifts in classification. Over 30 schools moved into the ranks of doctoral universities. This effectively catapults them into the prestigious U.S. News category of national universities. Previously they were referred to as “masters universities” by Carnegie and regional institutions by U.S. News.

Among those elevated were Boise State University, Cal State Fullerton, Eastern Michigan University, Fresno State, Kennesaw State University, Liberty University, Montclair State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, San Francisco State, Tennessee Tech, UC Merced, University of Louisiana-Monroe, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, University of West Georgia, and Villanova University.

And if the press releases associated with these announcements are any indication, these schools are VERY excited about their new designations.

For more information on the new classifications and the metrics used to create them, visit the Carnegie Classification website.

Just the facts: The nation’s wealthiest colleges in 2015

Harvard and Yale had the largest endowments in 2015

After two years of impressive growth, college endowment investment return rates fell in 2015 to 2.4 percent from 15.5 percent the previous year. While some institutions should still be feeling pretty flush, the average rate of return among colleges and universities participating in the annual survey conducted by Commonfund and the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) was the lowest since the -0.3 percent reported for FY 2012.

The 812 institutions in this year’s study represented $529.0 billion in endowment assets. Although the average endowment was about $651.5 million, more than half of the study participants had endowments coming in below $115 million.

And why do we care?

The college “endowment” is basically the total value of an institution’s investments—property, stocks, and cash. It mostly comes from donations from rich alums and others, but grows with wise management.  

Usually colleges use the interest from their endowments to cover worthy expenses like scholarships for students. A college with a huge endowment may be less concerned about getting 100% of tuition from every student and can afford to repair buildings or buy new technology.

“FY2015’s lower average 10-year return is a great concern,” commented NACUBO President and Chief Executive Officer John D. Walda. “On average, institutions derive nearly 10 percent of their operating funds from their endowments. Lower returns may make it even tougher for colleges and universities to adequately fund financial aid, research, and other programs that are very reliant on endowment earnings and are vital to institutions’ missions.”

And the size of an endowment can be an indicator of the financial health of an institution. Nearly all endowments took serious hits after 2008 and have been working hard to recover since.

Although the largest endowments mostly support elite private colleges and universities, a handful of public institutions and systems have made it into the top 20 endowments including the University of Texas System (3), The Texas A&M System (7), University of Michigan (10), University of California (13), and the University of Virginia (18).

And it’s also interesting to look at U.S. institutions with top 200 endowments that experienced significant—well above average—growth over the past year.  Among these are University of Denver (35.4%), UC Irvine (32.5%), UC San Francisco (23%), University of Utah (21.9%), and Bowdoin College (14.5%). 

The DC area is home to a number of colleges with endowments among the top 200 in the nation, including the University of Virginia (18), Johns Hopkins University (28), University of Richmond (37), Virginia Commonwealth University (56) George Washington (57), Georgetown (61), Washington and Lee University (67), University System of Maryland (97), Virginia Tech (114), The College of William & Mary (115), Howard University (147), American University (158) and Virginia Military Institute (197).

The complete list of colleges and universities participating in the 2015 survey may be found on the NACUBO website. For the record, here are the top 25 by rank order ($000s):

1. Harvard University:  $36,448,817 (+1.6% over FY2014)
2. Yale University:  $25,572,100 (+7%)
3. University of Texas System:  $24,083,150 (-5.3%)
4. Princeton University:  $22,723,473 (+8.2%)
5. Stanford University:  $22,222,957 (+3.6%)
6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology:  $13,474,743 (+8.4%)
7. Texas A & M University System:  $10,477,102 (-5.6%)
8. Northwestern University:  $10,193,037 (+4.2%)
9. University of Pennsylvania:  $10,133,569 (+5.8%)
10. University of Michigan:  $9,952,113 (+2.3%)
11. Columbia University:  $9,639,065 (+4.5%)
12. University of Notre Dame:  $8,566,952 (+6.6%)
13. The University of California:  $7,997,099 (+8.3%)
14. University of Chicago:  $7,549,710 (+0.1%)
15. Duke University:  $7,296,545 (+3.7%)
16. Washington University:  $6,818,748 (+2.6%)
17. Emory University:  $6,684,305 (0)
18. University of Virginia:  $6,180,515 (+3.9%)
19. Cornell University:  $6,037,546 (+2.5%)
20. Rice University:  $5,557,479 (+0.5%)
21. University of Southern California:  $4,709,511 (+2.5%)
22. Dartmouth College:  $4,663,730 (+4.4%)
23. Vanderbilt University:  $4,133,542 (+1.2%)
24. The Pennsylvania State University:  $3,635,730 (+5.5%)
25. Ohio State University:  $3,633,887 (+2.4%)