Ranking colleges based on the qualifications of the students they admit is akin to saying that the best hospitals are those that admit the healthiest patients.
It’s really about what happens once the students are there. If a ranking service could crack the codes of measuring student growth and comparing outcomes they’d have something. Until that happens, they should simply be viewed as the magazine revenue generators that they are.
Yes! And I love a good higher Ed/healthcare analogy, as some of you are aware from other threads.
The best hospitals ought to be able to take the sickest patients and make them as well as they can be (perhaps not completely better, though, depending on disease state). “Fancy” prestigious hospitals are sometimes in the business of taking special five-star care of rich patients from all over the world (Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, Cedars, etc.) but they still prove their worth by how well they take care of those with deadly illnesses, even if they also play pimple-popper to jetsetting internationals.
Ivies have diversified their entry classes with respect to every socioeconomic parameter except academic achievement: they aren’t in the business of providing an education to students who struggle to get a C or D in basic high school classes. But then again, neither are flagship state schools. Probably because it would be a weird use of their unique resources.
Which brings us back to what many have said upthread: the interventions need to be earlier. The educational system needs to be equalized at birth-12 to the extent possible.
So back to the healthcare analogy: the major difference between healthy and unhealthy American populations isn’t what hospital they go to when sick, but all of the other factors (food, environment, exercise, other habits, $) that contribute to needing a hospital in the first place.
And, US News ranks hospitals too. But for most of us, those are ignorable rankings.
From some posts here you’d think it should be a race to the bottom of the pile for a college. If you want to make sure people succeed start with basics. Reading , writing, 'rithmetic. College should not be for remedial students–and we have a thread on that already.
"Cardona specifically criticized the use of standardized-test scores, peer-assessment surveys, and alumni donations as key metrics, as is the case in the U.S. News & World Report rankings.
“You compete for the most affluent students by luring them with generous aid, because the most well-prepared students have the best SAT scores and graduate on time. …"
If he feels so strongly about standardized testing, why not recommend that all colleges stop using standardized testing in admissions. (as the University of California did)
That would not help(?) marginalized students while at the same time, eliminate a data point for the ranking services.
That was a blog link. Try this: https://www.diycollegerankings.com/
When I say I want to see what kind of growth a student has from when they enter college to when they graduate, I’m not talking about remedial skills. If a student goes to Harvard (or any other college in the country) and doesn’t graduate from it with better writing and analytical skills than when they entered it, then it was a waste. (There are more purposes to a college education than those skills, but that should be the floor.) And I think even 99% of CCers would agree that the students matriculating at Harvard are far from remedial students. The same concept is true for grad school. If the skill level doesn’t increase from when someone graduated from college, what’s the point of grad school? Skills don’t need to be at a remedial level in order to see growth and improvement in them.
i am not speaking for the non-elite state college i work for.
but from my point of view, the rankings are VERY HELPFUL in having students look at some of our programs. And attracting faculty who might otherwise otherwise overlook the programs.
Some of our faculty are top-notch and rankings are a nice and worthy KUDO to them. so - just another point of view. (again, not in anyway in a competitive situation!)
In general, I agree with the statement that “ranking colleges based on the qualifications of the students they admit is akin to saying that the best hospitals are those that admit the healthiest patients.”
Still if we are talking about universities and not just colleges, I always assumed that their societal role is larger than educating young adults. Their role is also about the production of knowledge through research and publications. So um, trying the analogy, a good university is not just curing the sickest patients. It might also develop life-saving treatments and medications??? I don’t know where I am going with this analogy except to say that while I mostly agree with Carbona’s overall points that particular speech seems focused on undergraduate education and universities do more than teach 18-22yos.
Top universities lure the most affluent students with generous aid??
Dont most schools already give low income, first generation students a leg up in the college admissions process?
Dont most schools give need based aid?
Dont most schools (especially top schols) make every effort to increase diversity?
Dont most schools offer test optional so that kids dont have to submit SAT/ACT scores?