Peer Comparisons

Table of ContentsPeer Comparisons Introduction 8.1 Total Enrollment, Fall 2006 8.3 Total Enrollment by Level, Fall 2006 8.3 Undergraduate Enrollment, Fall 2006 8.4 by Full-time/Part-time Status 8.4 by Gender 8.5 by Ethnicity 8.5 Graduate Enrollment, Fall 2006 8.6 by Full-time/Part-time Status 8.6 by Gender 8.7 by Ethnicity 8.7 Total Degrees Awarded, Academic Year 2005-06: 8.8 by Level 8.8 by Gender 8.9 by Ethnicity 8.9 Bachelor's Degrees Awarded, Academic Year 2005-06: by Gender 8.10 by Ethnicity 8.10 by Discipline 8.11 Master's Degrees Awarded, Academic Year 2005-06: by Gender 8.12 by Ethnicity 8.12 by Discipline 8.13 Doctoral Degrees Awarded, Academic Year 2005-06: by Gender 8.14 by Ethnicity 8.14 by Discipline 8.15 First-year Retention Rate, Fall 2005 Cohort 8.16 Six-Year Graduation Rate, Fall 2000 Cohort 8.16 Student to Faculty Ratio, Fall 2006 8.17 Percent of Classes with Fewer than 20 Students, Fall 2006 8.17 Percent of Classes with 50 or more Students, Fall 2006 8.17 First-time First-year Enrollment, Fall 2006 8.18 by Gender 8.19 by Ethnicity 8.19 Acceptance Rate, Fall 2006 8.20 First-time First-year Yield, Fall 2006 8.20 SAT 25th-75th Percentile Range, Fall 2006 8.21 Proportion of Incoming First-years in Top 10% of High School Class, Fall 2006 Cohort 8.21 Average Faculty Compensation, Academic Year 2006-07: Professors 8.22 Associate Professors 8.22 Assistant Professors 8.23 Proportion of Instructional Faculty Who are Full-time, Fall 2006 8.23 University Endowment Funds, Fiscal Year 2006 8.24 University Endowment Assets per FTE Student, Fiscal Year 2006 8.24 Expenditures per FTE Student, Fiscal Year 2006 8.25 Tuition & Fees, Academic Year 2007-08 8.26 Tuition & Fees Plus Room & Board, Academic Year 2007-08 8.26 Full-time First-year Enrollment, Fall 2005 Cohort 8.27 Percent of Full-time First-year Students Receiving Financial Aid, Fall 2005 Cohort 8.27 Full-time First-year Students Receiving Federal Grant Aid, Fall 2005 Cohort: Percent Receiving Aid 8.28 Average Amount of Aid Received 8.28 Full-time First-year Students Receiving State/Local Grant Aid, Fall 2005 Cohort: Percent Receiving Aid 8.29 Average Amount of Aid Received 8.29 Full-time First-year Students Receiving Institutional Grant Aid, Fall 2005 Cohort: Percent Receiving Aid 8.30 Average Amount of Aid Received 8.30 Full-time First-year Students Receiving Student Loan Aid, Fall 2005 Cohort: Percent Receiving Aid 8.31 Average Amount of Aid Received 8.31

Peer ComparisonsSource Data:

The data used for the Peer Comparisons section of this book comes from multiple data sources, as listed below:Academe - Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors (Academe)National Center for Education Statistics - Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO)U.S. News & World Report's "America's Best Colleges 2008" (US News & World Report)

Peer Institution List:

The following list of schools was selected by executive administration for benchmarking purposes:California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech)Cornell University (Cornell)Duke University (Duke)Emory University (Emory)Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech)Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)Northwestern University (Northwestern)University of Pennsylvania (Penn)Princeton University (Princeton)Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)Rice University (Rice)Stanford University (Stanford)Washington University in St. Louis (Washington)

Definitions:

Degree Disciplines: All degree disciplines are categorized according to their Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codeArchitecture & Visual & Performing Arts: Includes Architecture and related services; visual and performing artsBusiness Management, Marketing & Related Support Services: Includes business, management, marketing, and related support servicesComputer & Information Sciences: Includes computer and information sciences and support servicesEngineering: Includes engineering; engineering technologies/techniciansHumanities & Social Sciences: Includes area, ethnic, cultural, and gender studies; communication, journalism, and related programs; communications technologies/technicians and support services; foreign languages, literatures, and linguistics; english language and literature/letters; liberal arts and sciences, general studies and humanities; philosophy and religious studies; theology and religious vocations; psychology; social sciences; historyMathematics, Statistics, Biological & Physical Sciences: Includes biological and biomedical sciences; mathematics and statistics; physical sciences

Other Disciplines: Includes agriculture, agriculture operations, and related sciences; natural resources and conservation; personal and culinary services; education; family and consumer sciences/human sciences; legal professions and studies; library science; military technologies; multi/interdisciplinary studies; parks, recreation, leisure, and fitness studies; science technologies/technicians; security and protective services; construction trades; mechanic repair technologies/technicians; precision production; transportation and materials moving; health professions and related clinical sciencesPublic Administration & Social Services: Includes public administration and social services professions

Expenditures: Includes the following institutional expenses: Instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, and institutional support

Faculty Compensation: Sum of salaries and benefits

Federal Grant Aid: Includes grants that were provided by federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Education, including Title IV Pell Grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOGs). Also includes need-based and merit-based educational assistance funds and training vouchers provided from other federal agencies and/or federally-sponsored educational benefits programs, including the Veteran's Administration, Department of Labor, etc.

Freshmen Retention Rate: The percent of first-time first-year students who return for their sophomore year

Institutional Grant Aid: Includes scholarships and fellowships that were granted and funded by the institution and/or individual departments within the institution (and are limited to students attending the institution). Also includes tuition and fee waivers granted by the institution (for which the institution is not reimbursed from another source). These would include scholarships targeted to certain groups of individuals (from a particular state or studying a certain subject) for which the institution designated the recipient; athletic scholarships; etc.

Runzheimer Indices: Indices to adjust salaries for cost of living; adjusts salaries to a standard U.S. city

8.1

Definitions (cont.):

SAT 25th-75th Percentile Range: The range in which the middle 50% of the first-time freshmen scored on their SATs

Six-Year Graduation Rate: The percent of first-time first-year students who graduate within six years

State/Local Grant Aid: Includes grants that were provided by your state such as Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships (LEAP) (formerly SSIGs). Also includes merit scholarships that were provided by your state and tuition and fee waivers for which your institution was reimbursed by a state agency. Local grants would include any local government grants, scholarships or gift-aid that are awarded directly to the student.

Student Loan Aid: Includes all Title IV subsidized and unsubsidized loans made directly to students and for which the student is the designated borrower. (Include Perkins Loans made to students.) Exclude PLUS and other loans made directly to parents and for which the parent is the designated borrower. Also includes all institutionally- and privately-sponsored loans made to students, for which the student is the designated borrower (as long as the funds pass through the financial aid office).

Student to Faculty Ratio: The total full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment of students divided by the total full-time equivalent (FTE) of instructional faculty

8.2

Total Enrollment1

Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer InstitutionsFall 2006

2,086

9,999

19,639

13,373 12,338

17,936

10,253

18,486

23,743

7,085 6,6805,024

17,747

13,355

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

Total Enrollment by Level1

Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer InstitutionsFall 2006

41% 55

% 69%

47% 54

% 69%

40% 50

%

50% 68

% 78%

60%

36% 55

%

13% 13

%

8% 10% 9%

59% 45

% 26%

40% 33

%

31%

60% 42

%

40% 32

% 22%

40%

58%

35%

6%

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

% Undergraduate % First-professional % GraduateSource: IPEDS

Enrollment: 2,086 9,999 19,639 13,373 12,338 17,936 10,253 18,486 23,743 7,085 6,680 5,024 17,747 13,355

1. Enrollment counts do not include students enrolled at our Qatar campus.

8.3

Undergraduate Enrollment1

Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer InstitutionsFall 2006

864

5,548

13,562

6,330 6,646

12,361

4,127

9,179

11,922

4,790 5,192

3,011

6,4227,386

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

Undergraduate Enrollment by Full-time/Part-time Status1

Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer InstitutionsFall 2006

100%

97%

100%

99%

98%

93% 99%

89%

85% 10

0%

99%

99%

100%

85%

7%

11%

15%

15%3% 1% 2% 1% 1%1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

% Full-time % Part-timeSource: IPEDS

864 5,548 13,562 6,330 6,646 12,361 4,127 9,179 11,922 4,790 5,192 3,011 6,422 7,386Enrollment:

1. Enrollment counts do not include students enrolled at our Qatar campus.

8.4

Undergraduate Enrollment by Ethnicity1

Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer InstitutionsFall 2006

11%

11% 17

%

13%

12% 19

%

12%

13% 17%

10% 19

% 24%

12%8%

12%

8%

8%

10% 9%

86% 77

%

81%

78%

81%

84% 73

%

83% 77%

74%

87% 77

% 70%

83%

6%

5%

6% 4% 5% 3%

5%

6%

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

% Under-represented Minority % Non-resident Alien % OtherSource: IPEDS

Enrollment: 864 5,548 13,562 6,330 6,646 12,361 4,127 9,179 11,922 4,790 5,192 3,011 6,422 7,386

Undergraduate Enrollment by Gender1

Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer InstitutionsFall 2006

71%

62%

51%

51%

42%

71%

56%

47%

48% 54%

75%

51%

52%

48%

29%

38%

49%

49%

58%

29%

44%

53%

52% 46%

25%

49%

48%

52%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

% Men % WomenSource: IPEDS

Enrollment: 864 5,548 13,562 6,330 6,646 12,361 4,127 9,179 11,922 4,790 5,192 3,011 6,422 7,386

1. Enrollment counts do not include students enrolled at our Qatar campus.

8.5

Graduate EnrollmentCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2006

1,222

4,4515,181 5,350

4,080

5,5756,126

7,824

9,453

2,2951,488

2,013

10,285

4,715

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

Graduate Enrollment by Full-time/Part-time StatusCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2006

100%

74%

100%

94%

82%

82% 97

%

73%

74%

100%

76% 96

%

66% 72%

26% 18

%

18%

27%

26%

24%

34% 28

%

6% 4%3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

% Full-time % Part-timeSource: IPEDS

Enrollment: 1,222 4,451 5,181 5,350 4,080 5,575 6,126 7,824 9,453 2,295 1,488 2,013 10,285 4,715

8.6

Graduate Enrollment by GenderCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 200670

%

70%

62%

52%

39%

74%

70%

56%

49% 60

% 69%

64%

64%

51%

30%

30%

38%

48%

61%

26%

30%

44%

51% 40

% 31%

36%

36%

49%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

% Men % WomenSource: IPEDS

Enrollment: 1,222 4,451 5,181 5,350 4,080 5,575 6,126 7,824 9,453 2,295 1,488 2,013 10,285 4,715

Graduate Enrollment by EthnicityCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2006

8% 14%

7% 8% 7% 10%

7%

36%

42%

41%

25% 18% 42

%

36%

23% 27

% 39%

41%

34%

35%

22%

58%

54%

53%

67%

67% 50

%

59%

71% 66% 56

%

52%

57%

59%

71%

6%6% 5% 6% 6%4%6%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

% Under-represented Minority % Non-resident Alien % OtherSource: IPEDS

Enrollment: 1,222 4,451 5,181 5,350 4,080 5,575 6,126 7,824 9,453 2,295 1,488 2,013 10,285 4,715

8.7

Total Degrees Awarded by LevelCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2005-06

45%

40% 60

%

43%

43% 60

%

35%

38%

42% 63

%

64%

56%

36% 46

%

22% 52

% 27%

37%

29%

31%

46% 47%

40% 21

% 28%

34%

44% 35

%

33%

8%

8%

19%

16% 9%

14%

8%

13%

22% 10

%

7%8%

10%

6%

8%

10%

10%

6%7%5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

%Bachelor %Masters %Doctoral %Other

544 3,182 5,872 3,449 3,473 4,157 3,198 5,550 6,773 1,786 1,631 1,444 4,822 3,602Degrees:

Source: IPEDS

Total Degrees AwardedCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2005-06

544

3,182

5,872

3,449 3,4734,157

3,198

5,550

6,773

1,786 1,631 1,444

4,822

3,602

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

8.8

Total Degrees Awarded by GenderCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2005-0672

%

66%

54%

55%

42%

73%

67%

54%

51% 56% 74

%

59%

59%

52%

28%

34%

46%

45%

58%

27%

33%

46%

49% 44% 26

%

41%

41%

48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

%Men %WomenSource: IPEDS

544 3,182 5,872 3,449 3,473 4,157 3,198 5,550 6,773 1,786 1,631 1,444 4,822 3,602Degrees:

Total Degrees Awarded by EthnicityCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2005-06

9% 13%

15%

10%

9% 8% 9% 12%

15%

15%

9%

26% 29%

18% 21

% 27%

18% 19% 20

%

17% 15

% 21%

13%

68%

64%

74%

84% 78% 69

% 64%

75%

72%

69%

77% 71% 64

%

78%

6%6% 7%

7%

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

%Under-represented Minority %Non-resident Alien %OtherSource: IPEDS

544 3,182 5,872 3,449 3,473 4,157 3,198 5,550 6,773 1,786 1,631 1,444 4,822 3,602Degrees:

8.9

Bachelors Degrees Awarded by GenderCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2005-0667

%

60%

49%

50%

40%

71%

59%

46%

51%

54%

75%

54%

51%

48%

33%

40%

51%

50%

60%

29%

41%

54%

49%

46%

25%

46%

49%

52%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

%Men %Women

247 1,287 3,534 1,469 1,496 2,477 1,129 2,097 2,867 1,125 1,036 811 1,756 1,648Degrees:

Source: IPEDS

Bachelors Degrees Awarded by EthnicityCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2005-06

9% 10%

10% 17

%

11%

11% 16%

11%

11% 15%

18% 25

%

12%

9%

9%

9%

83%

79%

83%

81%

85%

83% 75

%

84%

79%

76%

88% 76

% 69%

84%

6%

11%

4%

6%

6%

6%

8%

6%6%3%

2%

7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

%Under-represented Minority %Non-resident Alien %OtherSource: IPEDS

247 1,287 3,534 1,469 1,496 2,477 1,129 2,097 2,867 1,125 1,036 811 1,756 1,648Degrees:

8.10

Bachelors Degrees Awarded by DisciplineCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2005-06

8%

36%

25%

33%

14%17

%18%

53%

16%

14%

56%

16%

18%

21%

12%

15%

1%

13%

12%

7%

1%

14%

7%

51%

45%

45%

42%

5%

57%

25%

21%

3%

4%

54%

8%

61%

47%

4%

5%

3%

18%

2%

11%

7%

1%

1%

1%

10%

15%

10%

10%

4%

4%

7%

14%

2%4%

2%

2%

6%

10%

4%

12%

16%

18%

10%

13%

15%

10%

57%

6%

11%

27%

8%

7%

15%

9%

1%

2%

2%

1% 2%

7%

13%

19%

6% 3%

7%3%5%3%5% 3%

18% 12

%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

247 1,287 3,534 1,469 1,496 2,477 1,129 2,097 2,867 1,125 1,036 811 1,756 1,648Degrees:

%Other Disciplines%Public Admin. & Social Services%Mathematics, Statistics, Biological & Physical Sciences%Architecture & Visual & Performing Arts%Computer & Information Sciences%Humanities & Social Sciences%Business Management, Marketing & Related Support Services%Engineering

8.11

Masters Degrees Awarded by GenderCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2005-0679

%

71%

64%

60%

42%

75%

72%

62%

52% 58% 71

%

68%

64%

55%

21%

29%

36%

40%

58%

25%

28%

38%

48% 42% 29

%

32%

36%

45%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

%Men %Women

120 1,650 1,584 1,275 996 1,280 1,467 2,616 2,741 373 449 486 2,112 1,274Degrees:

Source: IPEDS

Masters Degrees Awarded by EthnicityCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2005-06

9% 8% 8% 13%

9%

38%

38%

35% 15%

40%

34%

27% 29

% 35%

26%

21%

31%

22%

57%

56%

59%

86% 67

% 52%

59%

68%

63% 57%

66%

66% 61%

70%

18%

5% 6% 7% 5% 8% 8% 7%6%

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

%Under-represented Minority %Non-resident Alien %Other

120 1,650 1,584 1,275 996 1,280 1,467 2,616 2,741 373 449 486 2,112 1,274Degrees:

Source: IPEDS

8.12

Masters Degrees Awarded by DisciplineCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2005-06

11%

55%

8%

60%

17% 23

%

44%

8% 6%

25%

35%

6%

40%

33%

20%

50%

30%

4%

35%

52%

33%12

%

37%

53%32

%

30%

10%

12%

9%

4%

23%

10%

17%

3%

4%

10%

17%

8%

7%

8%

7%

7%

2%

12%

4%

2%

8%

9%1%

8%

22%

8%

5%

1%

15%

5%

9%

7%

3%

10%

8%

1%

5%

7%

7%

9%

9%

15%11

%

14%

5%

2%

2%

8%

2%8%

3%

24%

13%

25%

7%

1%

1%

5%

3%

12% 11

%

10%

2%2%

26%

15%

1%2%

45%

15%12

%

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

Degrees:

Source: IPEDS

120 1,650 1,584 1,275 996 1,280 1,467 2,616 2,741 373 449 486 2,112 1,274

%Other Disciplines%Public Admin. & Social Services%Mathematics, Statistics, Biological & Physical Sciences%Architecture & Visual & Performing Arts%Computer & Information Sciences%Humanities & Social Sciences%Business Management, Marketing & Related Support Services%Engineering

8.13

Doctoral Degrees Awarded by GenderCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2005-0676

%

70%

61%

57%

35%

78%

73%

50%

50% 65

% 75%

56% 66

%

49%

24%

30%

39%

43%

65%

22%

27%

50%

50% 35

% 25%

44% 34

%

51%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

%Men %Women

177 245 476 271 204 400 602 423 496 288 146 147 677 303Degrees:

Source: IPEDS

Doctoral Degrees Awarded by EthnicityCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2005-06

7%

44% 60

%

47%

13%

55%

42%

33%

31% 45

%

64%

41%

40%

26%

54% 38

%

48%

93% 76

%

40%

55%

62%

64% 52

% 32%

54%

55%

68%

2% 2% 5% 11%

6% 2% 5% 5% 2% 5% 4% 6%3%

1%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

%Under-represented Minority %Non-resident Alien %Other

177 245 476 271 204 400 602 423 496 288 146 147 677 303Degrees:

Source: IPEDS

8.14

Doctoral Degrees Awarded by DisciplineCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2004-

2% 4%

10%

5% 7%

0%

30%

36%

21%

17%

69%

42%

26%

7%

28%

59%

32%

32%

12%

4%

20%

30%

37%

10%

17%

28%

34%

3%

20%

17%

16%

63%

20%

31%

31%

43%

17%

28%

21%

28%

29%

18%

41%

30%

31%

22%

3%

3%

9%

7%

3%

4%

5%

3%

0%

21% 15

%

18%

21%

23%

0%

13%

32%

2% 1% 1% 2% 1%

1%

2%

1%

2%

2%

1%

12%

2%

2%

10%

2%

1%

2%

4%

3%

1%

3%

2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

%Other Disciplines%Business Mgmt., Marketing & Related Support Services%Computer & Information Sciences%Mathematics, Statistics, Biological & Physical Sciences%Humanities & Social Sciences%Public Administration & Social Services%Engineering%Architecture & Visual & Performing ArtsSource: IPEDS

187 207 452 277 162 355 581 366 463 273 137 134 671 275Degrees:

Doctoral Degrees Awarded by DisciplineCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2005-06

12%

32%

32%

59%

28%

7%

26%

42%

69%

1%

17%21

%

36%

30%

1%

3%

4%

4%

3%

2%

2%

3%

5%

37%

16%

17%

20%

3%

34%

28%

17%

10%

2%

30%

20%

12%

1%

2%

4%3%

10%

2%

1%

7%

9%

3%

3%

22%

2%

1%3%

7%

5%

10%

4%

2%

1%

1%

2%

2%

31%

30%

41%

18%

29%

28%

21%

28%

17%

43%

31%

31%

20%

63% 4%

2%

2%

1%

1%

2%

32%

13%

5%

23%

21%

6%

18%15

%

21%

4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice RPI

Stanford

Washington

Degrees:

Source: IPEDS

177 245 476 271 204 400 602 423 496 288 146 147 677 303

%Other Disciplines%Public Admin. & Social Services%Mathematics, Statistics, Biological & Physical Sciences%Architecture & Visual & Performing Arts%Computer & Information Sciences%Humanities & Social Sciences%Business Management, Marketing & Related Support Services%Engineering

8.15

Full-time First-year Retention RateCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2005 Cohort98% 94% 96% 96% 94% 91%

98% 97% 98% 98%92% 96% 98% 96%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

Six-year Graduation RateCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2000 Cohort

89% 86%92% 94%

87%77%

93% 93% 94% 96%

82%

93% 95% 91%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: US News & World Report

8.16

Student to Faculty RatioCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2006

3

10 108 7

14

7 7 6 5

15

5 6 7

02468

10121416

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: US News & World Report

Percent of Classes with Fewer than 20 StudentsCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2006

75%66% 60%

73%66%

42%

61%74% 74% 72%

42%

62%73% 73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: US News & World Report

Percent of Classes with 50 or More StudentsCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2006

8% 9%16%

6% 6%20% 14% 8% 8% 10% 10% 9% 10% 9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: US News & World Report

8.17

First-time First-year Enrollment1

Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer InstitutionsFall 2006

214

1,428

3,188

1,683 1,665

2,837

1,002

2,0622,371

1,228 1,270

713

1,6461,470

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

1. Enrollment counts do not include students enrolled at our Qatar campus.

8.18

First-time First-year Enrollment by Gender1

Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer InstitutionsFall 2006

72%

61%

52%

51%

44%

69%

55%

47%

49%

53% 71

%

50%

49%

51%

28%

39%

48%

49%

56%

31%

45%

53%

51%

47% 29

%

50%

51%

49%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

% Men % WomenSource: IPEDS

Enrollment: 214 1,428 3,188 1,683 1,665 2,837 1,002 2,062 2,371 1,228 1,270 713 1,646 1,470

First-time First-year Enrollment by Ethnicity1

Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer InstitutionsFall 2006

10%

12%

16%

13%

10% 21

%

13%

15%

17%

9%

20%

24%

12%

13%

8%

9% 10%

83% 77%

79%

77%

80%

86% 70

%

82% 75

%

73%

90% 74

%

70%

84%

6%

5%

1%

7%

6%

4%4%7%

6%

8%

12%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

% Under-represented Minority % Non-resident Alien % OtherSource: IPEDS

Enrollment: 214 1,428 3,188 1,683 1,665 2,837 1,002 2,062 2,371 1,228 1,270 713 1,646 1,470

1. Enrollment counts do not include students enrolled at our Qatar campus.

8.19

Acceptance RateCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2006

17%

34%25% 24%

37%

67%

13%

30%

18%10%

67%

24%

11%21%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

First-time First-year YieldCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2006

37%

22%

46% 43%

29%

46%

66%

41%

66% 69%

28%34%

67%

32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

8.20

SAT 25th-75th Percentile RangeCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2006

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Ric

e

Cal

Tec

h

Car

negi

e M

ello

n

Cor

nell

Duk

e

Emor

y

Geo

rgia

Tec

h

MIT

Nor

thw

este

rn

Penn

Prin

ceto

n

RPI

Stan

ford

Was

hing

ton

Source: US News & World Report

Proportion of Incoming First-years in Top 10% of High School ClassCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2006 Cohort

88%

75%84%

89% 88%

66%

97%

83%

94% 94%

62%

87% 89%95%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on*

Cornell

Duke

Emory*

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

ton*RPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: US News & World Report (*Under 51% of entering first-year students reporting)

8.21

Average Faculty Compensation - Professors(Compensation Adjusted Using Runzheimer Indices)

Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer InstitutionsAcademic Year 2006-07

$140

,626

$134

,064

$171

,042

$185

,758

$179

,651

$154

,950

$125

,103

$144

,583

$176

,391

$156

,932

$152

,312

$125

,541

$163

,385

$0$20,000$40,000$60,000$80,000

$100,000$120,000$140,000$160,000$180,000$200,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice

Stanford

Washington

Source: Academe

Average Peer Professor Compensation = $156,356

Average Faculty Compensation - Associate Professors(Compensation Adjusted Using Runzheimer Indices)

Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer InstitutionsAcademic Year 2006-07

$101

,567

$99,

009

$123

,268

$128

,706

$117

,056

$109

,616

$88,

417

$99,

304

$125

,208

$102

,018

$105

,296

$90,

860

$104

,441

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice

Stanford

Washington

Source: Academe

Average Peer Associate Professor Compensation = $107,980

8.22

Average Faculty Compensation - Assistant Professors(Compensation Adjusted Using Runzheimer Indices)

Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer InstitutionsAcademic Year 2006-07

$94,

525

$87,

039

$107

,933

$105

,239

$102

,672

$94,

637

$79,

074

$85,

991

$102

,535

$77,

638

$89,

376

$71,

579

$84,

824

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRice

Stanford

Washington

Source: Academe

Average Peer Assistant Professor Compensation = $91,335

Proportion of Instructional Faculty who are Full-timeCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2006

98%93%

98% 97% 95%100%

89%94%

86%93% 94% 93%

100%92%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: US News & World Report

8.23

University Endowment Funds ($000)Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fiscal Year 2006

$1,5

80,9

22

$939

,581 $4

,321

,199

$4,4

97,7

18

$4,8

70,0

19

$1,0

47,7

24

$8,3

68,0

66

$5,1

40,6

68

$5,3

13,2

68

$13,

044,

900

$682

,894 $3

,986

,664

$14,

084,

676

$4,6

84,7

37

$0$2,000,000$4,000,000

$6,000,000$8,000,000

$10,000,000$12,000,000

$14,000,000$16,000,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Endo

wm

ent F

unds

($00

0)

Source: NACUBO

Average Peer Institution Endowment Funds ($000) = $5,509,497

University Endowment Assets per FTE Student ($000)Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fiscal Year 2006

$729

$103 $2

22 $338 $410

$64

$820

$321

$252

$1,9

11

$113

$795

$1,0

71

$407

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

WashingtonEn

dow

men

t Ass

ets

per F

TE S

tude

nt ($

000)

Source: NACUBO

Average Peer Institution Endowment Assets per FTE Student ($000) = $573

8.24

Expenditures per FTE Student ($000)Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fiscal Year 2006

$221

$78 $70

$110$92

$41

$214

$71

$104 $107

$48$65

$145$133

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

WashingtonEx

pend

iture

s pe

r FTE

Stu

dent

($00

0)

Source: IPEDS

Average Peer Institution Expenditures per FTE Student ($000) = $109.4

8.25

Tuition & FeesCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2007-08$3

2,83

5

$37,

354

$34,

781

$35,

856

$34,

336

$24,

343

$34,

986

$35,

429

$35,

916

$33,

705

$35,

878

$28,

900

$37,

726

$35,

524

$0$5,000

$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000$40,000$45,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Average Peer Institution Tuition & Fees = $33,863

Tuition & Fees Plus Room & BoardCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Academic Year 2007-08

$42,

375

$47,

014

$45,

971

$45,

636

$44,

556

$31,

701

$45,

386

$46,

205

$46,

124

$44,

685

$46,

298

$39,

150

$48,

534

$46,

776

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Average Peer Institution Tuition, Fees, Room & Board = $44,107

8.26

Full-time First-year Enrollment1

Carnegie Mellon vs. Peer InstitutionsFall 2005 Cohort

234

1,407

3,076

1,724 1,637

2,453

1,001

1,952

2,484

1,221 1,240

721

1,6331,461

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

Percent of Full-time First-year Students Receiving Financial AidCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2005 Cohort

53%

68%73%

62% 62%

82% 81%

65%59% 55%

97%

84%

72%

57%

0%

20%

41%

61%

81%

102%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

8.27

Percent of Full-time First-year Students Receiving Federal Grant AidCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2005 Cohort

10% 11% 12%16%

12% 13%

23%

34%

8% 9%15% 15%

11% 9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

Average Amount of Federal Grant Aid ReceivedCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2005 Cohort

$5,525$5,916

$5,189

$6,143

$4,641

$3,252

$5,401

$3,536

$6,630$5,950

$6,500

$2,719

$5,551

$3,654

$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

8.28

Percent of Full-time First-year Students Receiving State/Local Grant AidCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2005 Cohort

24%

6%

19%13%

26%

63%

3%

29% 30%

6%

39%

22%

6% 8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

Average Amount of State/Local Grant Aid ReceivedCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2005 Cohort

$3,310$2,880 $2,573

$3,034$3,881

$5,503

$1,985

$3,257$3,989

$1,785 $1,602

$3,304

$8,322

$2,491

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

8.29

Percent of Full-time First-year Students Receiving Institutional Grant AidCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2005 Cohort

52%

63%

43% 45% 46%

25%

58%52%

39%

55%

93%

66%

46% 47%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

Average Amount of Institutional Grant Aid ReceivedCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2005 Cohort

$23,367

$16,891$18,364

$22,825

$18,863

$5,768

$24,299

$18,264$20,613

$17,262$14,890

$20,294$19,122

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

8.30

Percent of Full-time First-year Students Receiving Student Loan AidCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2005 Cohort

20%

47% 44%38% 36% 36% 39% 39% 39%

12%

52%

29%21%

31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

Average Amount of Student Loan Aid ReceivedCarnegie Mellon vs. Peer Institutions

Fall 2005 Cohort

$1,591

$5,749

$6,961

$5,750$5,146

$4,235 $4,044 $3,834

$6,276

$3,419

$5,894

$2,769

$4,223 $4,454

$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000

Cal Tec

h

Carneg

ie Mell

on

Cornell

Duke

Emory

Georg

ia Tec

hMIT

Northwes

tern

Penn

Prince

tonRPI

Rice

Stanford

Washington

Source: IPEDS

8.31