Niche Most Diverse Campus Ranking Methodology

The Most Diverse Campus ranking provides a comprehensive assessment of the diversity at traditional four-year colleges and universities in the United States. It uses data sourced from various government and public data sets, Niche’s own proprietary data, and 777,115 opinion-based survey responses about campus diversity from 99,714 current students and recent alumni.

A high ranking in Diversity generally indicates that:

  • Students report that the campus is extremely diverse and fosters a community that accepts and promotes a diversity of viewpoints, backgrounds, religious beliefs, sexual orientations, and socioeconomic statuses;
  • Enrolled students come from all over the United States and the world, representing various backgrounds and ethnicities;
  • The college employs a diverse faculty, both in terms of gender and ethnicity.

Colleges Assessed by this Ranking

At the time of calculation, our database contained records for 2,245 public and private, traditional four-year colleges and universities across the United States. For the purposes of this ranking, a “traditional” college is considered to be any accredited, non-profit post-secondary institution that primarily offers four-year degree programs (as opposed to two-year or less). Some colleges were not included in this ranking if: (1) they were not located in one of the 50 U.S. states, Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia; (2) they had fewer than 100 full-time undergraduate students; or (3) they had insufficient data (see below). The final ranking results in 1,659 colleges receiving a grade, with 934 of those also receiving a numerical ranking.

Factors Considered

FactorDescriptionSourceWeight
Student Survey Responses Student opinions about the quality of the diversity at the college they currently or recently attend(ed). Includes 777,115 reviews and opinions from 99,714 unique students. Minimum 17 unique students required at each college. Niche users 20%
Student Diversity - Most Represented Ethnicity Percentage of students belonging to the most represented ethnicity (lower is better). U.S. Department of Education 20%
International Students (%) Percentage of students who are not legal U.S. residents. U.S. Department of Education 20%
Out-of-State Students (%) Percentage of students whose primary residence is not in same state as college. U.S. Department of Education 15%
Faculty Diversity - Most Represented Ethnicity Percentage of faculty belonging to the most represented ethnicity (lower is better). U.S. Department of Education 10%
Faculty Gender Ratio (M-F) Ratio of male faculty to female faculty. U.S. Department of Education 10%
Student Gender 
Ratio (M-F)
Ratio of male undergrads to female undergrads. U.S. Department of Education 5%

Statistics obtained from the U.S. Department of Education represent the most recent data available, usually from either 2012–2013 or 2013–2014, as self-reported by the colleges.

Computation

The process used to compute this ranking was as follows:

  1. First, we carefully selected the factors listed above to represent a healthy balance between statistical rigor and practical relevance in the ranking.
  2. Next, we evaluated the data for each factor to ensure that it provided value for the ranking. (The factor needed to help distinguish colleges from each other and accurately represent each college.) Because there are different factor types, we processed them differently:
    • Factors built from student-submitted survey responses were individually analyzed to determine a required minimum number of responses. After this, responses were aggregated. We logically have a higher degree of confidence in the aggregated score for colleges with more responses, so a Bayesian method was applied to reflect this confidence.
    • Factors built from factual information were inspected for bad data, including outliers or inaccurate values. Where applicable, this data was either adjusted or completely excluded depending on the specific data.
  3. After each factor was processed, we produced a standardized score (called a z-score) for each factor at each college. This score evaluates distance from the average using standard deviations and allows each college’s score to be compared against others in a statistically sound manner.
  4. With clean and comparable data, we then assigned weights for each factor. The goal of the weighting process was to ensure that no one factor could have a dramatic positive or negative impact on a particular college's final score and that each college's final score was a fair representation of the college's performance. Weights were carefully determined by analyzing:
    • How different weights impacted the distribution of ranked colleges;
    • Niche student user preferences and industry research;
    • Each factor’s contribution to our intended goal of the ranking described in the introduction above.
  5. After assigning weights, an overall score was calculated for each college by applying the assigned weights to each college’s individual factor scores. This overall score was then assigned a new standardized score (again a z-score, as described in step 3). This is the final score for the ranking.
  6. With finalized scores, we then evaluated the completeness of the data for each individual college. Depending on how much data the college had, we might disqualify it from the numerical ranking or from the grading process. Here is how we distinguished these groups using the weights described in step 4:
    • Colleges missing the data for 50 percent or more of the factors (by weight) were completely excluded. They did not qualify for the numerical ranking or a grade. Note: This exclusion occurred before calculation of the final z-score.
    • Colleges that had all of the required factors and more than 1,500 full-time undergraduate students were deemed eligible for both a grade and a numerical ranking. Colleges that did not have all of the required factors or did not meet enrollment requirements were not included in the numerical ranking and received a grade only. Note: Neither Faculty Ethnic Diversity nor Faculty Gender Ratio were required factors for inclusion in the ranking.
  7. Lastly, we created a numerical ranking and assigned grades (based on qualifications discussed in step 6). Here is how we produced these values:
    • The numerical ranking was created by ordering each college (when qualified) based on the final z-score discussed in step 5.
    • Grades were determined for each college (when qualified) by taking the ordered z-scores (which generally follow a normal distribution) and then assigning grades according to the process below.

Grading Process for This Ranking

While our ranking shows the Top 100 colleges, we use grades to provide the user some context to those rankings and also to provide insight into colleges that did not make the Top 100. It’s important to focus on more than just the number in the ranking. Given the high number of colleges included in this ranking, there may not be a large gap between the 15th and 30th ranked colleges. In reality, both are exceptional colleges when compared to the total population of all colleges nationwide. Grades are assigned based on how each college performs compared to all other colleges included in the ranking by using the following distribution of grades and z-scores:

GradeFinal Z-ScoreCountDistribution
A+ 1.96 ≤  z 56 3.36%
A 1.28 ≤  z < 1.96 138 8.27%
A- 0.84 ≤  z < 1.28 148 8.87%
B+ 0.44 ≤  z < 0.84 152 9.11%
B 0.00 ≤  z < 0.44 288 17.26%
B- -0.44 ≤  z < 0 328 19.65%
C+ -0.84 ≤  z < -0.44 254 15.22%
C -1.28 ≤  z < -0.84 174 10.43%
C- -1.96 ≤  z < -1.28 81 4.85%
D+ -2.25 ≤  z < -1.96 26 1.56%
D -2.50 ≤  z < -2.25 20 1.20%
D- -2.50 > z 4 0.24%

Note that we intentionally did not assign a grade below D- to any colleges.

The Outcome

Of the 2,245 colleges analyzed, 1,659 received a grade, with 934 of those also receiving a numerical ranking.  The top ranked college was Massachusetts Institute of Technology, leading in nearly every category, except Faculty Gender Ratio where it scored poorly. Both No. 2 Stanford University and No. 3 Amherst College also performed extremely well, with the top three all scoring nearly three standard deviations above the mean college.

It's important to note that we did not require Faculty Ethnic Diversity or Faculty Gender Ratio as factors for a college to be eligible for the numerical ranking. This decision was made because the factors were missing for a meaningful number of college and together only accounted for 15 percent of the ranking. We tested several variations, including imputing the population mean, and none materially changed the ordering of the colleges. The top ranked college, MIT, does have both factors and would have been the top college whether or not the factors were included. Given these considerations, we determined to include the factor at a low weight. Among the Top 10 colleges, Stanford, University of Pennsylvania, and Chaminade University of Honolulu were missing the factors. Earlham College and California Institute of the Arts each received an A+ grade but were excluded from the numerical ranking because their undergraduate enrollment was below the minimum 1,500 students.

For questions or media inquiries, please contact us.