<p>The letter is out and now the dozens of schools leading the revolt are now afoot to organize a collective boycott:</p>
<p>
[quote]
...recent events have rallied opposition, including the tying of presidential pay to ranking at Arizona State University and accusations by the president of Sarah Lawrence College that the magazine threatened to use hocus-pocus data to stand in for average SAT scores at the school.</p>
<p>At the heart of the matter: A college degree is increasingly expensive, and students and parents want to make informed decisions. But educators worry that the rankings have made college a commodity, creating a false impression that schools can be easily compared and stressing out students who want only the "best" schools.</p>
<p>A breath of fresh air. Rather than just bemoaning the "rankings" issue and blithely participating, some in academe now seem willing to do something about it.</p>
<p>This is the sort of thing I have proposed in prior posts only to have been pooh-poohed by other posters. Individual colleges can unilaterally disarm themselves and withdraw from the USNews game though few have had the integrety to do so. Props to Reed and perhaps Sarah Lawrence.</p>
<p>I think that USNews does a service by assembling important data for prospective applicants. But they then make a futile attempt to use the data in a subjective ranking scheme that all academics publically deplore. I say continue to compile the data and publish it by alphabetical listing of colleges and universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I'm hopeful that whatever comes out of this [boycott] sends different kinds of signals and messages to students, so they realize that when they are in high school, they can follow their curiosity," says Lloyd Thacker, lead author of the circulating letter and head of The Education Conservancy, a nonprofit in Portland, Ore.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I really, really try hard to like Lloyd Thacker, but I still don't understand HIM. Could someone explain how a boycott of the USNews helps high school students follow their curiosity?</p>
<p>Oh, I know that Thacker has attacked randomly what he calls the commercialization of the college process --albeit owing his start to one company that benefits handsomely from the process. Heck, is there ANY doubt he'd take US News money in a hardbeat, just as he accepts money from the ACT and from the Princeton boys? </p>
<p>Clinging to the burning hope of finding a clear message or a worthwhile thought, I check his site every few weeks ... only to find the same disappointing and hollow sea of nothingness and hypocrisy.</p>
<p>PS I still believe that the USNews should separate the Peer Assessment from the objective sections of the ranking, and eliminate all schools that send partial or no data.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is the sort of thing I have proposed in prior posts only to have been pooh-poohed by other posters. Individual colleges can unilaterally disarm themselves and withdraw from the USNews game though few have had the integrety to do so. Props to Reed and perhaps Sarah Lawrence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We have beaten this issue to death in a number of past discussions. While I agree that Reed and SLC should be allowed to withdraw from the ranked listings and be listed alphabetically, I don't think that such a situation would please them. Where you see integrity, I see hypocrisy! It so happens that the publicity of "fighting" publicly with USNews represents a priceless opportunity for the rebel schools.</p>
<p>Well, at least, searching for Dulcinea yields a wonderful song. I just hope that Lloyd Thacker would sound as true as Jacques Brel in the leading role. As I wrote before, I don't think asking for a clear message from the self-anointed guru is too much. And, I'm not talking about the hodgepodge of platitudes and generalizations he's been delivering so far. </p>
<p>I wish I could change my opinion that his approach, his methods, and a few personal attributes are questionable. I'd set all my negative impression aside for a simple and clear message to his supposed targets: the families of teenagers facing the daunting process of applying to schools. </p>
<p>In so many words, what would Thacker tell a 15 year old in Portland or in SATville, Mass what to DO! Go strum a guitar for a few years while seeking the meaning of life? </p>
<p>So far, the EC believes that polling the same people who are responsible for the current malaise will yield a magical solution. That is fine and dandy, but what does HE and his organization have to offer? A world of BWRK living in a hybrid of Lake Wobegon and Copenhagen's Christiana? </p>
<p>Bringing changes is indeed not easy; it's especially hard for one desperately seeking for the proverbial clue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that USNews does a service by assembling important data for prospective applicants. But they then make a futile attempt to use the data in a subjective ranking scheme that all academics publically deplore.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The same academics who would rather fight WWII over again than give up lifetime employment without accountability? Those academics? The proven enemies of measurable results in education? The ones who say things like:</p>
<p>
[quote]
[Students] aren't consumers shopping for a product.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>[clue] That's exactly what students are doing -- shopping for a good education. [/clue]</p>
<p>What academics don't like is having some force outside the academy HAVING AN OPINION not controlled by that academy.</p>
<p>WashDad,
You hit the nail on the head with the academics' desire to avoid any accountability. If colleges were a business, this process would be a lot more responsive to its customers (students, families, employers, alumni) than it would to its employees (faculty and administrators). Who are colleges here to serve???</p>
<p>If the prestige privates really wanted some accountabilty, they could publish their COFHE data (that would be a real eye-opener - H. at 27th out of 31 in perceived academic quality and quality of campus life would take some getting used to) or take part in NSEE. </p>
<p>Pascarella and Kuh on nessie (NSSE), academic accountability, public advocacy and college rankings:</p>
<p>Student Engagement: A Means to Many Desirable Ends (Kuh)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The primary activity of both the NSSE and CCSSE projects is to conduct annual surveys of undergraduates. These instruments are relatively short and collect information about - among other things - how students spend their time, how much they read, write, and study, and what they think about their college experience. Students' responses about the extent to which they participate in these and other important areas of effective educational practice serve as a proxy for quality in undergraduate education. Moreover, colleges and universities can take immediate action when they know which areas of student engagement need attention. So, although the NSSE and CCSSE surveys do not assess student learning outcomes per se, they do provide the kind of information every school needs to have to know where to focus its efforts to improve student learning and success in college....</p>
<p>There's an interesting titbit in this report on the same story, suggesting that the boycott runs deeper than the 2 handfuls of college presidents who met in NY with Lloyd Thacker last summer.</p>
<p>It sounds as though many of the Annapolis Group schools (a loose consortium of nearly all the top LACs--a group with > 100 members) are considering collective action. </p>
<p>I frankly don't think it will make much difference on the street--USNews will come up with a revised methodology; the rankings will shuffle a little more than usual; those who put stock in the rankings themsevles will continue to do so; those who use the charts for individual data points will continue to do so; and USNews will still rake in lots of money. But I certainly applaud any college who at least doesn't contribute to an enterprise that it feels works against its educational goals.</p>
<p>How 'bout we put together a petition anytime an institution falls in the USN listing that the President of that institution be fired? Oh yeah, that kind of violates the notion that administrators be held accountable for what they DO (or don't do) rather than where that year's metric placed the institution. What did Samuel Clemens say about there being three kinds of liars?</p>