Skip to main content

What’s Really Wrong with the College Rankings

Blog: 

Brian Rosenberg, president emeritus of Macalester College and a visiting professor in the Harvard Graduate School of Education, has written the best article that I’ve read on the recent decision by leading law schools to boycott the US News ratings.  In an essay entitled “Higher Ed’s Prestige Paralysis,” he makes a highly convincing argument that with or without the US News rankings, “college reputations are fixed, valuable, and based on almost no hard evidence.”

I regard his argument, that the US News rankings are based on almost no real evidence of quality, as absolutely correct, and I wholehearted agree with his main message:  That the rankings simply serve to reinforce the existing structure of institutional wealth and prestige.  

Indeed, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the US News rankings were reverse engineered to ensure that the "right" schools appeared at the top.

College ratings take various forms.  Washington Monthly famously measures economic mobility. Georgetown's Center for Education and the Workforce has released invaluable information on the return on investment of individual colleges and programs. 

As for US News, it tries to measure quality largely in terms of inputs:  resources, average class size, faculty qualifications, standardized test scores, and reputation.

Each approach has its limitations.  Mobility and ROI measures tend to privilege schools located in high income or fast-growing cities or regions.  Even licensure passing rates in Engineering and Nursing (or bar passage rates for law schools) can be misleading, since schools can game the system by restricting admissions into those programs.

Indirectly, the US News rankings measure students’ qualifications.  It’s my view that the biggest effect of its rankings has been to nationalize the higher ed marketplace by encouraging the most academically successful students to aspire to attend one of the leading national colleges and universities. 

None of the college ratings that I’m familiar with truly tries to measure what I consider the single most important variable:  the quality of the academic experience.  That’s not easy to do, but I do think it’s possible – because we know it when we see it.

For example, how about having the opportunity to serve as a research assistant to a Nobel Prize winner?  I know a recent Columbia graduate who did just that.  Or how about working with a psychology department chair and a team of students on a game-like app now used in many medical centers to draw out information from adolescents suffering from chronic illnesses, as my stepson did.  

I myself had the opportunity during my senior year to write a biography of the Harlem Renaissance poet and essayist Jean Toomer, and, in the process, spend time in the Fisk University archives and interview the artists Aaron Douglas and Georgia O’Keeffe and the poet and biographer Arna Bontemps.  That proved to be a real education.

If I had to measure quality, I’d try to assess the share of the students who: 

  • Had the opportunity to work one-on-one with a faculty mentor.
  • Participated in a learning community, an honors program, or a research or opportunity program.
  • Partook regularly in small classes or seminars or a studio courses. 
  • Took part in an experiential learning opportunity, including a supervised internship, mentored research, study abroad, or service learning or created a project in a maker space.
  • Produced a capstone project that was evaluated by faculty other than the student’s mentor.

I can think of still other measures of quality:  The proportion of students who shared a meal or had coffee with a faculty member, visited a professor’s house, went on an off-campus excursion with an instructor, or took part in co-curricular and extracurricular activities.

I hear the objections.  Won’t those indicators discriminate against schools that serve large numbers of part-time and commuter students?  Not necessarily.  I’m aware of many institutions, including many of the City University of New York 2 and 4-year campuses, that make student engagement and enrichment activities defining features of their undergraduate experience.

One byproduct of the awful academic job market is that Impressive teacher-scholars can be found at every campus. Every student at a 4-year brick-and-mortar non-profit (and many 2-year schools) has the opportunity to study with a genuine subject matter expert and research scholar.  Sure, the average academic qualifications of the undergraduates differ, but talented, highly motivated students too are omnipresent. 

The big difference among institutions, in my view, lies elsewhere: Partly in things that are hard to measure, like the amount and the quality of constructive feedback that students get.  But mainly in matters that we can quantify, including access to mentoring, the amount of faculty-student interaction, participation in learning and research cohorts and more intimate and interactive learning experiences, and engagement in experiential learning opportunities.

Let’s not wait for for-profits to assess quality.  Accreditors need to step up to the plate.  Accrediting agencies are especially well positioned to collect the information that applicants need (including information on student satisfaction and student assessments of teaching quality and post-graduation employment and earnings) that truly can allow prospective college students to gauge academic quality.  

Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin.  

Show on Jobs site: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 
Advice Newsletter publication dates: 
Monday, November 28, 2022
Diversity Newsletter publication date: 
Monday, November 28, 2022


Udimi - Buy Solo Ads from Inside Higher Ed https://ift.tt/Bzl8mFM
via IFTTT

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Author discusses book on grad school

Graduate school is a great mystery to students, and to some faculty members, says Jessica McCrory Calarco, the author of A Field Guide to Grad School: Uncovering the Hidden Curriculum (Princeton University Press). Calarco is an associate professor of sociology at Indiana University. She believes many faculty members (as well as graduate students, of course) will benefit from her book. She responded to questions via email. Q: How did you get the idea to write this book? Why did the issue speak to you? A: This book started as a tweet . Or, rather, as a series of tweets about the hidden curriculum of higher ed. Ph.D. student Kristen K. Smith had tweeted about the need to better educate undergrads about grad school opportunities, and it made me think about how opportunities in academe are often hidden from grad students, as well. Reflecting on my own experiences in grad school, I thought about the many times I'd found myself embarrassed because of what I didn't know -- the

Guest Blog: Where Does the Bizarre Hysteria About “Critical Race Theory” Come From?—Follow the Money!

Blog:  Just Visiting Guest Blog: Where Does the Bizarre Hysteria About “Critical Race Theory” Come From?—Follow the Money! By Isaac Kamola Trinity College Hartford, CT There are now numerous well-documented examples of wealthy right-wing and libertarian donors using that wealth to transform higher education in their own image. Between 2005 and 2019, for example, the Charles Koch Foundation has spent over  $485 million  at more than 550 universities. As demonstrated by Douglas Beets and others, many of these grants include considerable  donor influence  over what gets taught, researched, and even who gets hired. It should therefore come as no surprise that conservative megadonor, Walter Hussman Jr.,  lobbied hard  to deny the Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones a tenured professorship at the UNC journalism school that bears his name. Nor that her offer of tenure, awarded through the normal channels of faculty governance, was ultimately  revoked   by a far-

Live Updates: Latest News on COVID-19 and Higher Education

Image:  Woman Charged With Faking Positive COVID-19 Test From U of Iowa   Nov. 5, 6:14 a.m. A lawyer in Colorado has been charged with faking a positive COVID-19 test from the University of Iowa to get out of a court appearance, The Gazette reported.   Emily Elizabeth Cohen was booked Tuesday on a detainer from the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office, shortly after she tweeted that the Colorado court system “just had me arrested alleging I lied about having COVID. Tweeting from cop car.”   The Boulder Daily Camera reported that Cohen is scheduled for a 10-day trial in Boulder County in Colorado starting Dec. 6 for 11 felony counts stemming from allegations she collected fees from immigrant families before losing contact with them without producing visas or work permits.   -- Scott Jaschik Judge Permits Suit Against Montana State to Go to Trial Nov. 3, 6:18 a.m. A Montana judge has ruled that a suit against Montana State University over the shift to online education