There is a general interest in ranking schemes applied to complex entities described by multiple attributes. Published rankings for universities are in great demand but are also highly controversial. We compare two classification and ranking schemes involving universities; one from a published report, "Top American Research Universities" by the University of Florida's TheCenter and the other using DEA. Both approaches use the same data and model. We compare the two methods and discover important equivalences. We conclude that the critical aspect in classification and ranking is the model. This suggests that DEA is a suitable tool for these types of studies.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Benefit-cost analysis is required by law and regulation throughout the federal government. Robert Dorfman (1996) declares "Three prominent shortcomings of benefit-cost analysis as currently practiced are (1) it does not identify the population segments that the proposed measure benefits or harms (2) it attempts to reduce all comparisons to a single dimension, generally dollars and cents and (3) it conceals the degree of inaccuracy or uncertainty in its estimates." The paper develops an approach for conducting benefit-cost analysis derived from data envelopment analysis (DEA) that overcomes each of Dorfman's objections. The models and methodology proposed give decision makers a tool for evaluating alternative policies and projects where there are multiple constituencies who may have conflicting perspectives. This method incorporates multiple incommensurate attributes while allowing for measures of uncertainty. An application is used to illustrate the method.