HBCU的顶级研究现状？

Executive Summary Since 2015, the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education has used aset of calculations based on ahost of criteria—such as research expenditures, numberof faculty, doctoral degrees conferred, and number of PhD research staff—todetermine its highly coveted R1 (“very high research activity”) top-tier researchclassification.Starting in 2025, CCIHEwilldrastically simplify the criteria. The newthreshold for achieving R1 will simply be spending $50 million on research anddevelopment (R&D) and awarding 70 doctoral degrees in any research field––all withina year. Congress has long recognized the strategic importance of increasing the defenseresearch capacity of minority-serving institutions, and itrecently enacted a law withthe goal ofencouragingthe highest performers amongthese institutions, includingeligible historically Black colleges and universities, toachieveR1 status. Section 223 ofthe 2023 National Defense Authorization Act authorizestheDepartment of Defense(DOD) tousea portion of the billions of dollars it spends annually on higher educationR&D toexpand the defense research capacityatthe nation’s minority-servinginstitutionsand encourage them to strive for R1 status.1Although the changesto theCCIHE criteriaslated for 2025 intend to uplift a range of R&D efforts across thecountry’s diverse higher education landscape, the implications for the nation’s HBCUsare unclear. This policy brief addresses the question of how the original goals for HBCU progresssupported by Section 223 translate to thenewcriteria for achieving R1 statusadoptedin2025.The Section 223 law relies on the2015classification criteria to develop“measurable” progress towardtop-tier research status.2This raises concern about theimpact of thenew2025criteriaon the key goal of Section 223:toexpand defenseresearch capacity byencouragingeligibleHBCUs and otherminority-servinginstitutions to achieve R1 status. Here,we analyze data on research expenditures andPhD conferrals for R1 and R2 universities, according to the 2015CCIHEcriteria, andweanalyze a snapshot of the11 R2 HBCUsfrom2021,in the context of thenewlysimplified2025 criteria. Several key recommendations emergefromthe analysis presented here: 1.Revisit Section 223.Congress,theDOD,and HBCU leadership together shouldrevisit thegoals and objectivesof Section 223 to develop strategies forinvestment, programming, and sustainment based on theCCIHEclassificationcriteria being adopted in 2025. Center for Security and Emerging Technology |1 2.Increase the proportion ofscience, technology, engineering, and mathematicsresearch PhDs.For the key objectives ofbothachieving and sustaining R1status, strategies for eligible R2 HBCUs should focus on increasing theproportion ofSTEMresearch PhD degrees to greater than 33percent, with 45percentas a goal. 3.Increase the proportion of institutional expenditures.To address the gapbetween R2 HBCUs and highly successful R1 institutions, R2 HBCUs focusedon top-tier research status should increase the proportion of institutionalfunding of R&D, largely driven by endowment income, to levels of 30percentorgreater. 4.Close the funding gaps.To achieve goals of Section 223, for those institutionsclosest to 70 research PhD conferrals per year, near-term infusions of state andlocal R&D funding can provide a bridge to developing long-termstrategies togrow the proportion of institutional funding. Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................................1Introduction...............................................................................................................................................4Background on the Carnegie classifications and their importance.....................................6HBCUs, Congress, DOD, and Sec. 223....................................................................................10Why is this a goal worth achieving?.....................................................................................11The Carnegie Change.....................................................................................................................12Impact on HBCUs........................................................................................................................12Overview of HBCUs in the research ecosystem and the broad Carnegie implications,challenges..............................................................................................................................................13Underfunding and overperformance.........................................................................................13Pathways to R1 for R2 HBCU institutions...................................................................................16Discussion..........................................................................................................................................2