New Carnegie Classification recognizes Behrend as a ‘Higher Earnings' college
ERIE — Penn State Behrend has received a new Carnegie Classification as a 'Higher Earnings' institution — a reflection of the return on investment for Behrend graduates.
Just 10 percent of all U.S. colleges and universities received the 2025 designation, which measures graduates' earnings eight years after they enroll at a college. The designation, part of a new Student Access and Earnings Classification, is awarded by the American Council on Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; it also assessed student access at the institutions that were evaluated.
'This new designation reinforces what we consistently hear from our graduates, who find success and competitive compensation in their chosen careers,' Chancellor Ralph Ford said. 'That measure is important not only to our graduates, but to prospective students who are just beginning their college experience and want to be strategic with that investment.'
In February, Penn State Behrend and Penn State Harrisburg received the Carnegie Classification for 'Research Colleges and Universities,' a new designation for high-achieving research institutions that do not award Ph.D. degrees. To qualify, a college must produce at least $2.5 million in annual research and development spending.
At Behrend, the research enterprise now generates nearly $10 million in sponsored research every year. Highlights from the last year include:
• $6.5 million from the commonwealth's Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program to begin construction of the Center for Manufacturing Competitiveness, an industry-facing research facility that will feature specialized plastics, metal-casting and manufacturing labs.
• $4.4 million from the Department of Defense and the Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation to develop metals-based manufacturing programs.
• $2.5 million in federal funding for a battery-testing rig that will be used to study thermal runaway — a chain-reaction that can occur when lithium-ion batteries overheat.
'Research opportunities are a pillar of Penn State Behrend's 'Open Lab' approach to learning,' Ford said. 'For students — especially undergraduates — a research experience can be a differentiator. In the lab or in the field, students more fully understand the nature of their work, and they see firsthand how they can make a difference.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Better EV Stock: Ford vs. Tesla
Robotaxis aren't an optional extra for the car industry; they are the future of mobility. One company stands best placed to deliver affordable electric vehicles. The two companies could potentially become partners. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › -The comparison between Ford (NYSE: F) and Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is valuable and valid because it speaks to where the auto industry is headed and highlights the relative position of each company as it moves toward electric vehicles and robotaxis. Whether it's a legacy automaker (Ford) or a dedicated battery electric vehicle company(Tesla), the key opportunities and challenges are the same. So, which company is better placed to thrive in the future? Tesla's launch of its full-self-driving (FSD) robotaxi is sometimes seen as a tactical move as its electric vehicle (EV) sales and market share come under pressure in 2025, but nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that major automakers, including Ford, and leading technology companies have invested billions in robotaxis and autonomous driving, and it's an integral part of the future of the auto industry. The reason behind the investment is a recognition that robotaxis have huge profit potential, not least because they offer a long stream of recurring income from ride-per-mile revenue. Another reality is that EVs are not cheap, and if they are the future of the auto industry, automakers need to make them more affordable. They also need to offer robotaxis to make mobility more affordable. However, don't take my word for it. Here's Ford's CEO Jim Farley in 2019 on autonomous driving and robotaxis: "The self-driving system is incredibly important to develop, but it's just one part of building a safe and scalable self-driving service that consumers can trust." Farley went on to outline a timeline for a "commercial self-driving service" in 2021, which Ford would fail to achieve. As for affordable EVs, last year, Farley reiterated the need to offer smaller and more affordable EVs to achieve profitability as an EV maker. The two things are strongly connected. You can't have robotaxi EVs if the vehicles aren't affordable. That's a point that resonated during a recent CNBC interview with Waymo, which has a robotaxi service already in place, yet co-CEO Tekedra Mawakana declined to outline a timeline for the company's profitability. Waymo's lack of profitability means its owner, Alphabet, is going to have to invest significant sums, at a loss, if it wants Waymo to build scale. That creates a huge opportunity for a company like Tesla that is just entering the market and potentially offers a much more commercial and scalable service. Tesla's advantage in scaling robotaxis lies in its ability to transform existing Tesla vehicles into robotaxis, as well as its capability to produce a dedicated robotaxi, the Cybercab. Unlike Waymo, Tesla doesn't need to partner with automakers to build scale. Moreover, Musk has disclosed that Tesla has been in discussions about licensing its FSD to other automakers -- another route to long-term profitability. I'll cut to the chase. If Tesla can make automated driving and robotaxis work, then there's only one winner here, and it's Tesla. First, Ford is a long way from having a profitable EV business. For example, its Model E segment lost $5.1 billion in 2024, and then $849 million in the first quarter of 2025. Ford sold 22,550 EVs in the first quarter, implying it lost almost $38,000 on every EV sold. Moreover, its EV models, the Mustang Mach-E, the F-150 Lightning, and the E-Transit, are far from being affordable EVs. In contrast, Tesla generated $7.1 billion in operating profit in 2024. Despite losing market share amid declining sales, it still dominated the U.S. market, holding 43.5% of the market in the first quarter of 2025. Ford was a distant second with 7.7%. Both Ford and Tesla are planning to release low-cost models in the future, but given Ford's ongoing losses, Tesla's profitability, and its ability to lower its average cost per car, down from above $38,000 in early 2023 to below $35,000 in late 2024, the latter looks far better positioned to do so sustainably. Ford backed off its robotaxi/FSD plans in 2022, following the shutdown of Argo AI by Ford and Volkswagen after years of heavy investment. The company had been created to develop the technology and received billions of dollars in investment from Ford and Volkswagen. For reference, General Motors has also ended robotaxi development. In contrast, Tesla is preparing for the official launch of its unsupervised FSD/robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, this month, and it may be live by the time you read this article. While the launch will be small and highly contained, it still marks the birth of Tesla's robotaxi offering. Musk believes Tesla will have a dedicated, low-cost robotaxi, the Cybercab, in volume production by 2026. Indeed, Ford may end up licensing FSD from Tesla, and to his great credit, Farley has indicated an openness to partnering on FSD. There is no guarantee that Tesla's robotaxi or FSD will be successful, and investors need to closely monitor events. Moreover, Musk has a history of being overly optimistic on such matters. That said, the major automakers have been and are still pursuing the idea of lower-cost EVs and robotaxis and automated driving, and currently, Tesla remains the best-positioned company to meet those aims. It's where the industry wants to be, and Tesla is in pole position. Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $373,066!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $38,158!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $664,089!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Lee Samaha has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet and Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Better EV Stock: Ford vs. Tesla was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ford Apparently Doesn't Care About Engines Anymore
Read the full story on The Auto Wire We have bad news for Ford fans: a top executive just said the automaker doesn't care about engines anymore. His justification is that consumers don't care about them, either. And boy, do people have a lot of hot takes about at a recent Bernstein conference, Ford Vice Chair John Lawler shared his controversial thoughts. 'I don't think that consumers really think about powertrains the way they did 30 years ago. Where combustion engines defined what a vehicle was; the horsepower, the displacement, the torque, and everything about the vehicle; I think a lot of that is gone.' As Ford and other Western automakers face the looming threat of Chinese brands which sell vehicles at unbelievably low prices, the Blue Oval and others are looking for every competitive advantage possible. That includes outsourcing engine development and manufacturing to suppliers. In other words, your Ford might have the exact same engine as a Honda or Chevy or Kia. Lawler believes car shoppers won't care. Unfortunately, we think for a portion of the market this is true. For some people, all they care about is when they push the ignition button the car turns on and it goes. They don't know or care about how many cylinders it has, the displacement, or how much power it makes. But there's always been a subset of society that has this kind of attitude. Suddenly, Lawler and others in the industry believe they should cater to them, but really it's a pretense. The real reason isn't because there are consumers who don't care about engines. What it comes down to is automakers are scared spitless they're going to get mowed over by Chinese automakers. Instead of leaning into what they do best and riding out the storm, they're going to try beating the Chinese at their game. It's a dumb move. The thing is your average person who buys a Nissan Rogue or some other beige vehicle doesn't care about the engine, until they do. If the thing is sluggish because it doesn't make much power and they have trouble merging onto the highway, they care. If the engine blows up at 80,000 miles because it was engineered or manufactured poorly, they care. They might not obsess over engine specs like enthusiasts, but there's a reason why Toyota sells so many Camrys: everyone knows they're super reliable and that's largely because of the proprietary engine design. Take that away and what is the Camry? It's revealing how the automotive media is largely agreeing with Lawler, even if begrudgingly because they've all bought into the narrative that electric cars are inevitably the future. That's the other thing driving this move. Automakers want to justify killing off internal combustion engines and taking away resources to further develop them is a wonderful way to do that. But Ford and others can't just turn away from ICE engines. They have to turn public opinion against them, salting the earth for Toyota or anyone else who might try to keep innovating in that space. They want to force the industry into electrification now that EV mandates won't be happening. We hope they fail and miserably so. Long live ICE. Source: Automotive News Image via Ford Join our Newsletter, subscribe to our YouTube page, and follow us on Facebook.
Gizmodo
16 hours ago
- Gizmodo
Are Ford and GM Still American?
For decades, Ford and General Motors have been symbols of American industry, blue-collar pride, and heartland grit. From the rugged Ford F-150 to the all-American Chevy, the Detroit Big Three — Ford, GM, and Chrysler (now part of Stellantis) — have dominated the auto market with vehicles built and sold across the United States. The Ford F-150 is a cultural symbol. For many, Detroit remains the heartland of the U.S. auto industry, a perception reinforced by billions of dollars in recent investments aimed at conquering the electric and autonomous vehicle markets. But a new ranking calls that entire identity into question. The annual American-Made Index from now in its 20th year, was just released, and it paints a startling picture. The list, which ranks vehicles based on factors like U.S. factory jobs, manufacturing plants, and the percentage of domestic parts, reveals how 'American' a car truly is. And this year, the results are a PR nightmare for the old guard. In a top 20 list dominated by Tesla, the legacy American brands are almost nowhere to be found. GM managed to place just one vehicle, the Chevy Colorado pickup, at a lowly number 19. Ford has no models in the top 20 at all. Meanwhile, every single Tesla model—except the Cybertruck—made the list, with the Model 3 taking the top spot. Even Stellantis saved face with the Jeep Gladiator and Wrangler, both assembled in Toledo, Ohio. Meanwhile, Japanese and Korean automakers—including Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Kia—also placed strongly, with several models assembled in American plants. This ranking lands at a politically charged time. President Donald J. Trump has launched a new trade war, recently imposing a 25% tariff on all imported cars that went into effect on April 3. The administration has championed an 'America First' manufacturing philosophy, yet the country's most iconic automakers are building cars that are, by this metric, less American than their foreign competitors. When contacted by Gizmodo, both GM and Ford deflected, choosing to highlight their investments and job creation numbers rather than address their poor showing in the ranking. 'We've added approximately 13,000 jobs in the US since 2008,' a Ford spokesperson said, noting that the company employs more hourly autoworkers than anyone else in the U.S. '80% of the vehicles we sell in the U.S are assembled here.' GM pointed to a recent announcement promising a $4 billion investment in its domestic plants. 'We've been committed to American manufacturing and are expanding production in the US,' a spokesperson told Gizmodo. To be fair, both companies are massive U.S. employers. At the end of 2024, GM employed 90,000 people in the country (56% of its global workforce), while Ford employed nearly 89,000 (52% of its total). GM is still the largest automaker in the U.S. by market share. But criteria are about more than just assembly. It scrutinizes the origins of engines and transmissions and the percentage of U.S. and Canadian parts. The website warns that 'just because a model may be made in a U.S. assembly plant doesn't necessarily mean it's exclusively made here.' For companies that have built their brands on a foundation of American identity, the fact that their vehicles don't even crack the top 15 is a terrible look. It suggests that in the globalized auto industry, the 'American-made' label is far more complicated than it seems.
