Mikyung Ryu

Grades the states on higher education

Biography: Mikyung Ryu Articles: A Look at Higher Education's Next Generation of Thinkers Marlene L. Garcia uses research to help shape California legislation J. Douglas Toma measures the cost of keeping up with the Joneses Jennifer Delahunty Britz speaks up for student-friendly admissions Marc Goulden crunches numbers on academics' family lives Bridget Terry Long blends an economist's methods with practical insights Joel Vargas helps 'near miss kids' land in college Peter J. Stokes paddles the white water of higher-education data Sarah E. Turner and Brian Pusser watch the wind in for-profit colleges' sails Printer friendly E-mail article Subscribe Order reprints

By SARA HEBEL

Mikyung Ryu is the chief number cruncher behind the higher-education grades that states receive every other year from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, an independent research group based in San Jose, Calif. As the lead analyst for the last two national report cards on higher education, Ms. Ryu shapes the findings about the higher-education services provided by each state, and by the nation as a whole, after combing through 35 measures from about 50 different sources of data.

Last year's report, "Measuring Up 2004," analyzed whether states' higher-education systems had improved over the decade from 1992 to 2002. It found that little progress had been made in getting more people to enter and complete college and that higher education had become less affordable. The report, like those in previous years, also graded the states in five categories: student preparation, college participation, college completion, college affordability, and benefits, such as economic and civic gains, that are associated with higher education.

Ms. Ryu, who is from South Korea and focused much of her doctoral work on comparative and international higher education, says she enjoys the national report-card project because it allows her to delve into a more pragmatic form of research, bridging theory and practice. And judging from the phone calls and e-mail messages she receives year-round from journalists and state and college officials, she believes the "Measuring Up" reports have a distinct impact.

"I'm pretty sure I made a lot of people pretty upset because we gave them bad grades," she says. "Hopefully it makes a difference in people's lives as well."

Many higher-education studies, Ms. Ryu says, focus on institutions and how they could attract better students. Not as many have looked carefully at the public good and how higher-education systems are working collectively for students and other state residents.

She worries that too much emphasis on the institutions' competitiveness will exacerbate the problem of "mission creep" among public colleges as each institution strives to improve its image. And she is concerned what the dogged pursuit of top students might mean for access to higher education and the future of community colleges.

Ms. Ryu fears that some two-year institutions are becoming too focused on enrolling academically talented students, while losing their traditional emphasis on providing opportunities for all kinds of students and preparing them to transfer to a four-year institution.

Assembling the "Measuring Up" reports makes her a sort of "middleman," she says, who can help force states to wrestle with those kinds of issues.

Many academics and state officials seem to hear from their bosses if their state gets a bad grade. "Getting a social pressure onto faculty members and departments is probably not very welcomed," she says. "The 'Measuring Up' has really created a place for discussion among higher-education policy makers."