2018 GREATER PHILADELPHIA COLLEGE RANKINGS
CRITERIA
AFFORDABILITY GRADUATION & RETENTION SOCIAL MOBILITY CLASS SIZE
Michael Clark M.P.A.
OVERVIEW
We have learned that the best correlation for individuals to earn family sustainable wages is either a higher education degree or a vocational certificate tied directly to a trade[1]. Without a higher education degree or vocational certificate, we have learned that individuals are often “stuck” in the cycle of poverty[2] due to the fact that if they successfully increase their earning potential their public benefit subsidies decrease at the same rate thereby keeping them poor. In a recent study,[3] we learned that in order to move out of poverty an individual with dependents needs to earn the equivalent of $22-$25 per hour. Yet, persons earning between minimum wage and $22-$25 per hour for the most part continue to be impoverished because as their wages increase their public subsidies decrease. Once a person earns above $22-$25/hour they can transition from being reliant on the system to becoming an independent contributor to society. Upon researching jobs that pay $22-$25 per hour we learned that most require a higher education degree or vocational certificate[4].
WHY COLLEGE RANKINGS
Understanding the above facts, we concluded that one of the most effective and sustainab le models to address poverty is by helping individuals obtain a college degree. However, given that most impoverished or low-income individuals experience significant barriers to attending college[5] we ranked Greater Philadelphia’s Colleges based on criteria that most impact low-income individuals' access to higher education including: affordability; social mobility; graduation/retention; and class size. We weighted each criteria by importance as follows: affordability with a 35 percent weight; social mobility with a 30 percent weight; graduation/retention with a 25 percent rate; and class size with a 10 percent weight.
Publicly available data has allowed us to develop this new set of indicators to rank colleges more effectively based on criteria that matter most to the average Greater Philadelphia resident who is looking to ascend the economic ladder. Colleges have a vital role to play in addressing inequality, and colleges that prioritize the following performance categories will play a vital role in addressing poverty in Philadelphia.
DEFINITIONS
Affordability data includes indicators such as annual tuition, average loan per student per year, and average annual net cost of attendance (including financial aid).
Social Mobility data includes indicators related to a student's ability to increase their income above their parents’ income, median early career income, and the percentage of low-income students attending a particular college/trade school. Recent research from the Equal Opportunity Project, led by economist Raj Chetty, utilizes “big data” to demonstrate how well (or how poorly) colleges promote social mobility[6]. Additionally, new social-mobility-focused rankings have emerged[7], and even data science startups[8] are finding new ways to measure college affordability, mobility, quality, and access. We used indicators made available from the aforementioned publicly available data, including the percentage of students in the top 80 percent of income earners whose parents were in the bottom 20 percent, the percentage of students moving up two income quintiles (or increasing their income 40 percent above their parents), median career salaries, and the percentage of low-income and Pell-eligible students.
Graduation data is the percentage of a school’s first-time, first-year students who matriculate within 150 percent of the program time. For a four-year university, this is graduating within six years.
Class Size data is defined as faculty to student ratio.
COMPARISON LANDSCAPE
Most rankings, like the U.S. News and World Report (U.S. News), in our view, are not targeted to the average resident. At best, these rankings contain irrelevant factors of concern; at worst, they perpetuate inequality and do more harm than good. These new rankings challenge the old criteria and ratings of U.S. News, which are not geared to an average urban city and are only useful for the small percentage of students who can attend elite schools that are too costly for the majority. U.S. News criteria such as undergraduate academic reputation, faculty resources, faculty salary, student selectivity, and financial resources do not promote college attendance for the average resident. In fact, these indicators incentivize colleges to limit accessibility to the average student. Colleges can serve as inflection points for social mobility, changing the trajectory of an individual’s economic outlook. However, if college administrations manage to outcomes driven by the U.S. News and World Report, they cater to students and parents already sitting at the top of the economic ladder while eliminating opportunities for students seeking social mobility through higher education.
The following Greater Philadelphia area College Rankings are based upon college affordability, increased social mobility, graduation and retention rates, and class size criteria.
Parents and students should be advised to look at both the overall ranking and the category (affordability; social mobility; graduation and retention rates; or class size) that is most relevant to determine which college best suits their needs. Generally, there is a tradeoff between affordability and mobility; the cheaper the college, the less economic mobility it produces for its students. Likewise, there is a tradeoff between graduation rate and affordability; the more affordable a college, the lower the graduation rate. More affordable colleges can manage to outcomes around increasing graduation rates and matching students with higher-paying employers. Colleges that rank high in social mobility can improve access by increasing acceptance rates and reducing costs to attend. These rankings provide Greater Philadelphia residents with access to rankings that will enable them to find colleges that best balance these tradeoffs to support opportunity for future economic mobility.
We chose these criteria because a prospective student needs to determine if he/she can 1) Afford college (affordability); 2) finish college with a degree (graduation); 3) get a job (social mobility; and 4) receive support (class size).
[1] www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of-not-going-to-college/ [2] www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2014/12/15/the-college-trap-that-keeps-people-poor /utm_term=.c77d2e7d7d98 [3] www.socialinnovationsjournal.org/images/DSP-Study-Final.pdf [4] www.epi.org/publication/the-class-of-2017/ [5] www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2014/12/15/the-college-trap-that-keeps-people-poor /utm_term=.c77d2e7d7d98 [6] www.equality-of-opportunity.org/papers/coll_mrc_paper.pdf [7] www.socialmobilityindex.org/ [8] www.niche.com/?ref=colleges
2018 GREATER PHILADELPHIA COLLEGE RANKINGS
1.TEMPLE UNIVERSITY 22.URSINUS COLLEGE
2.UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 23.NEUMANN UNIVERSITY
3.PEIRCE COLLEGE 24.PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITY
4.LINCOLN UNIVERSITY 25.ROSEMONT COLLEGE
5.CHEYNEY UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 26.BRYN MAWR COLLEGE
6.AUTOMOTIVE TRAINING CENTER 27.UNIVERSITY OF VALLEY FORGE
7.COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA 28.BUCKS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
8.PRISM CAREER INSTITUTE 29.IMMACULATA UNIVERSITY
9.SWARTHMORE COLLEGE 30.ART INSTITUTE OF PHILADELPHIA
10.HOLY FAMILY UNIVERSITY 31.VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY
11.UNIVERSITY OF THE SCIENCES 32.MOORE COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN
12.MANOR COLLEGE 33.WIDENER UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS
13.GWYNEDD MERCY UNIVERSITY 34.MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
14.WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 35.EASTERN UNIVERSITY
15.LA SALLE UNIVERSITY 36.CAIRN UNIVERSITY
16.PEIRCE COLLEGE (YEAR UP) 37.CHESTNUT HILL COLLEGE
17.ARCADIA UNIVERSITY 38.HARCUM COLLEGE
18.HAVERFORD COLLEGE 39.DELAWARE VALLEY UNIVERSITY
19.HARCUM COLLEGE SATELLITE 40.EMPIRE BEAUTY SCHOOL OF PHILADELPHIA
20.CABRINI UNIVERSITY 41.SAINT JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY
21.DREXEL UNIVERSITY 42.THE UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS
NOTES
1. Peirce College (Year Up) offers an intensive, one-year program for college students, ages 18-24, combining professional coaching, hands-on skill development, and internships at some of America’s top companies.
2. Harcum College Satellite Sites are sites located throughout the region providing accessible and affordable alternatives options.
2018 GREATER PHILADELPHIA COLLEGE RANKINGS Rankings by Criteria Categories
INSTITUTION MOBILITY AFFORDABILITY GRADUATION CLASS SIZE
1.TEMPLE UNIVERSITY 5 13 10 29
2.UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 4 34 1 1
3.PEIRCE COLLEGE 2 5 40 23
4.LINCOLN UNIVERSITY 3 9 29 36
5.CHEYNEY UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 7 6 42 10
6.AUTOMOTIVE TRAINING CENTER 10 7 26 39
7.COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA 6 2 41 34
8.PRISM CAREER INSTITUTE 11 20 7 41
9.SWARTHMORE COLLEGE 19 27 3 3
10.HOLY FAMILY UNIVERSITY 9 18 22 18
11.UNIVERSITY OF THE SCIENCES 1 37 9 10
12.MANOR COLLEGE 16 11 34 3
13.GWYNEDD MERCY UNIVERSITY 12 24 19 10
14.WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 26 10 11 37
15.LA SALLE UNIVERSITY 17 22 15 18
16.PEIRCE COLLEGE (YEAR UP) N/A 1 33 42
17.ARCADIA UNIVERSITY 13 31 18 10
18.HAVERFORD COLLEGE 29 32 2 3
19.HARCUM COLLEGE SATELLITE 31 8 23 31
20.CABRINI UNIVERSITY 14 26 25 17
21.DREXEL UNIVERSITY 8 42 13 10
22.URSINUS COLLEGE 15 39 8 18
23.NEUMANN UNIVERSITY 18 21 28 23
24.PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITY 21 29 14 23
25.ROSEMONT COLLEGE 23 19 32 10
26.BRYN MAWR COLLEGE 28 38 5 3
27.UNIVERSITY OF VALLEY FORGE 27 16 31 23
28.BUCKS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE 37 3 35 29
29.IMMACULATA UNIVERSITY 34 28 12 8
30.ART INSTITUTE OF PHILADELPHIA 22 14 37 34
31.VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY 24 41 4 18
32.MOORE COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN 30 33 16 2
33.WIDENER UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 20 35 21 18
34.MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE 38 4 36 37
35.EASTERN UNIVERSITY 39 23 20 10
36.CAIRN UNIVERSITY 41 17 24 23
37.CHESTNUT HILL COLLEGE 33 25 30 8
38.HARCUM COLLEGE 32 15 39 31
39.DELAWARE VALLEY UNIVERSITY 25 30 27 31
40.EMPIRE BEAUTY SCHOOL OF PHILADELPHIA 35 12 38 40
41.SAINT JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY 36 40 6 23
42.THE UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS 40 36 17 3
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Michael (Mike) Clark, MPA, is a systems entrepreneur based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has researched, published, and worked in the areas of collective impact, financial innovation, impact investing, and social entrepreneurship. Mike is the lead researcher and policy analyst regarding the social impacts of paying direct service workers low wages forcing them to be dependents upon society through public benefits and reducing the quality of care due to high staff attrition and increased stress levels. Mike also served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Bulgaria. He holds a Bachelors degree from the University of Scranton, and a Master of Public Administration from the University of Pennsylvania’s Fels Institute of Government.