Colleges Rattled as Obama Seeks Rating System

[Gator88NE]

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/26/us/colleges-rattled-as-obama-presses-rating-system.html?hpw&rref=education&_r=1"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/26/us/colleges-rattled-as-obama-presses-rating-system.html?hpw&rref=education&_r=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
The college presidents were appalled. Not only had President Obama called for a government rating system for their schools, but now one of his top education officials was actually suggesting it would be as easy as evaluating a kitchen appliance.</p>

<p>“It’s like rating a blender,” Jamienne Studley, a deputy under secretary at the Education Department, said to the college presidents after a meeting in the department’s Washington headquarters in November, according to several who were present. “This is not so hard to get your mind around.”

[/quote]

Seems many of the college presidents are not 100% behind the plan...</p>

<p>
[quote]

“As with many things, the desire to solve a complicated problem in what feels like a simple way can capture people’s imagination,” said Adam F. Falk, the president of Williams College in Massachusetts. Dr. Falk said the danger of a rating system is that information about the colleges is likely to be “oversimplified to the point that it actually misleads.”</p>

<p>Charles L. Flynn Jr., the president of the College of Mount Saint Vincent in the Bronx, said a rating system for colleges is a bad idea that “cannot be done well.” He added, pointedly, “I find this initiative uncharacteristically clueless.”

[/quote]

It's seems the administration doesn't care much for what the presidents may have to say...</p>

<p>
[quote]

Ms. Muñoz countered that Mr. Obama had no patience for anyone who attempted to block the effort.</p>

<p>“For those who are making the argument that we shouldn’t do this, I think those folks could fairly have the impression that we’re not listening,” Ms. Muñoz said.

[/quote]

Ok then, this isn't going to end well...</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>California recently did something similar with Cal Grants. Students cannot use Cal Grants on schools whose graduation rates are too low or their federal loan default rates are too high. The actual standards are not particularly high, although they happen to screen out many of the for-profit schools.</p>

<p><a href=“https://www.calgrants.org/index.cfm?navId=278”>https://www.calgrants.org/index.cfm?navId=278&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://sandbox.csac.ca.gov/CalGrant_Inst/CalGrantInstSearch.aspx”>http://sandbox.csac.ca.gov/CalGrant_Inst/CalGrantInstSearch.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[moonchild]

<p>Since the plan is not to numerically rank, like the US News list, but rather rate, as in "excellent, good, fair, poor, " I doubt that schools doing a decent job of educating have anything to worry about. Colleges receive a lot of federal funds and there really is no accountability, so I can understand a need for a little oversight, considering how out of control the tuition prices are currently.</p>

<p>Of course, what the government uses as criteria for this rating matters, and there seems to be a fear that there will be too much emphasis on future earnings. Since that data is so difficult to obtain and isn’t necessarily an accurate measure of outcome, it’s certainly an easy objection to make. The devil is always in the details, but I’d be inclined to give it a chance.</p>

[geo1113]

<p>Perhaps the better solution is to get the federal government out of the business of supplying funds. </p>

[ccco2018]

<p>I agree with MOONCHILD.</p>

[spuding102]

<p>The cons in my opinion far out way the pros. </p>

<p>Cons:</p>

<p>1) College degrees will devalue as every college will seek to increase graduation rates by failing to throw students who are doing poorly out
2) Colleges will cut departments that traditionally do not have great career prospects which decreases educational value of an institution (why will schools fund a religious studies department when their graduates do not go into STEM fields to earn high salaries?)
3) Colleges ranked on the lower end will cease to exist since less funding=less students=worse perception. With such schools closing down there will be a shortage of students who can attend colleges.</p>

<p>I wonder whether a college degree will become run in the mill like in situation 1 or whether it will become more valuable as less students graduate with one as in situation 3. Only time will tell.</p>

[Mondut]

<p>Deeply disturbing suggestion . . . this idea strikes at the heart of “academic integrity”. </p>

<p>College professors must be free to teach in an atmosphere untainted by the pressure of political influence under any disguise. </p>

<p>Government has no reason or practical means of rating institutions of higher education. The free market can do that very well, thank you and stay out of it Mr. Obama. </p>

[Pennylane2011]

<p>“If you like your college, you can keep it” </p>

[SomeOldGuy]

<p>While I agree that a simplistic rating system is likely to be useless, I fail to see how an attempt to assess things like graduation outcomes constitutes undue “political influence.” That ship sailed when the federal government became the primary lender/guarantor to a sector where cost growth has outpaced economic growth for at least a generation. Faculty members whose delicate sensibilities at the individual classroom level might be offended by this might want to consider applying for jobs at Hillsdale or Grove City – though one suspects that might not suit them either. </p>

[Gator88NE]

<p>

Base Student Aid on College Value by 2018. Over the next four years, the Department of Education will refine these measurements, while colleges have an opportunity to improve their performance and ratings. The Administration will seek legislation using this new rating system to transform the way federal aid is awarded to colleges once the ratings are well developed. Students attending high-performing colleges could receive larger Pell Grants and more affordable student loans.

</p>

<p>What’s the chance that Mr. Obama’s administration would get any legislation passed over the next two years? As can be seen from Ms. Muñoz comments, the administration isn’t very good at compromise and consensus building.</p>

<p>Another key initiative is a new “Race to the Top for Higher Education”.</p>

<p>

Engage States with a Race to the Top for Higher Education that Has Higher Value and Lower Costs: The President requested $1 billion in Race to the Top funding to spur state higher education reforms and reshape the federal-state partnership by ensuring that states maintain funding for public higher education. About three-quarters of college students attend a community college or public university, and declining state funding has been the biggest reason for rising tuition at public institutions.

</p>

<p>I don’t think congress (members of either party) are excited about another “Race to the Top” initiative. By 2018, all we’ll have is an “oversimplified" rating system (and a new administration).</p>

[GMTplus7]

<p>

College professors must be free to teach in an atmosphere untainted by the pressure of political influence under any disguise.

Really? How long do you think an adjunct professor would last if he/she was teaching a course about the virtues of the National Rifle Associaton?</p>

<p>

Government has no reason or practical means of rating institutions of higher education. The free market can do that very well, thank you and stay out of it Mr. Obama.

Lol. It’s not free market economics if you are accepting gov’t subsidies.</p>

<p>The devil is in the details. I agree that some of the metrics the Obama administration is proposing are problematic. Less selective schools should not be penalized because they have more low-income students who have a lower graduation rate due to personal financial pressures. But am I the only taxpayer who thinks it’s not unreasonable for colleges to abide by some minimum accountability standards to be eligible for federal subsidies? Right now, it’s just a federal gravy train for the schools.</p>

<p>Bond ratings agencies rate colleges all the time. If creditors can insist on knowing the bond ratings for colleges when the creditors lend the colleges money, then why shouldn’t students/parents also have some kind of benchmarking when they commit their money and future?
<a href=“Office of Finance and Treasurer | American University, Washington, DC”>http://www.american.edu/finance/bond-ratings.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“Y.U. Debt Rating Downgraded to Junk – The Forward”>http://forward.com/articles/190719/yu-debt-rating-downgraded-to-junk/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“Many Colleges and Universities Face Financial Problems - The New York Times”>Many Colleges and Universities Face Financial Problems - The New York Times;

<p>Again, I acknowledge that the devil is in the details…</p>

[GMTplus7]

<p>

What’s the chance that Mr. Obama’s administration would get any legislation passed over the next two years? As can be seen from Ms. Muñoz comments, the administration isn’t very good at compromise and consensus building.

</p>

<p>The chances are ZERO. It’s not about actually doing anything; it’s about grandstanding and appealing to young voters & soccer moms.</p>

[Parent1337]

<p>That’s hilarious that an administration that has extremely low ratings in the eyes of the citizens wants to rate educational institutions for those same people. Please stay out and let the market take care of things. </p>

[SomeOldGuy]

<p>Is it more or less hilarious than people who believe that higher education is a neoclassical market? </p>

[thumper1]

<p>Ok…I’ll stick my neck out here. I think the ideas IN this proposal are very worthy of discussion…just like the premium costs of the ACA. BUT, I don’t think the politics of this are permitted on this forum, and I would hate to see the discussion closed because folks start talking about party vs. party, getting votes for the next election, etc. </p>

<p>Now…to the devil is in the details…any college that is doing it’s job has nothing to worry about.</p>

[GMTplus7]

<p>

Is it more or less hilarious than people who believe that higher education is a neoclassical market?

It’s a cartel.</p>

[collegevetting]

<p>Like he has any say over it. Anyone can rank a college. Paying attention to the ranking is something else.</p>

[momofthreeboys]

<p>I happen to think it’s an interesting concept. I tend to agree that colleges that are doing their job have nothing to fear. With costs skyrocketing many families would appreciate knowing their $25,000 or whatever a year is going to a college considering: a) graduates students at a higher percentage, b) how much debt the kids are taking on, c) how many years it’s taking them to graduate and d) if those students find jobs after graduation.</p>

<p>It does not sound to me like the administration wants to “take away” the “glow” that USNWR gives with their flawed ranking to 20-50 institutions, but more wants to give kids and parents some tangible numbers irrespective of how professors at college A rate professors at college B. Not sure it will hurt all that much. Face it, with the sheer numbers of average kids heading to college and the push for college education for all, a college education has, on some level, become a commodity.</p>

[actingmt]

<p>There’s no shortage of information on colleges. though. The numbers are available now. </p>

[SomeOldGuy]

<p>There’s no shortage of data. Whether it’s rationalized into a set of information that most parents and prospective students can reasonably evaluate is probably an open question. What the Administration appears to be trying to do here is another facet of its somewhat sotto voce belief in “choice architecture,” as exemplified in a couple of recent books by Cass Sunstein (who took leave from Harvard to run the regulatory oversight group at OMB during Obama’s first term).</p>

<p><a href=“Subscribe to read | Financial Times”>Subscribe to read | Financial Times;