Has US News Rankings Improved Higher Education Through Competition?

<p>If taken literally, the rankings are absurd. Whether Yale is better than Cal, or Bowdoin is better than Claremont are clearly subjective judgments that have to be answered by students depending upon their interests, styles of learning, geographical preferences, and so forth. If the “prestige” difference between Stanford and Reed matters a great to deal to someone, it says more about that person than the schools because they are both quite obviously excellent schools for top students. Similarly, the top mid-western LACs like Kenyon, Oberlin, and Grinnel are certainly the equivalent of the top east coast or west coast LACs regardless of where they may be ranked. </p>

<p>The most objective rankings that are relevant to the quality of the school are the student’s SAT scores and class ranking. I think that it would be hard to argue that the ability of the student body is not important in a college environment. Neither measure of student ability is perfect, and scores and class rank do not capture late bloomers, those whose intelligence may be outside the box, or those with intelligence but lack access to test preparation. However, broadly speaking, that info does tend to show where the highest concentrations of bright students are, an important factor in the quality of an educational experience. </p>

<p>However, for most types of undergraduate classes, how big a difference is there between a diligent 1300 average student and a diligent 1500 average student? I suspect that they can both do most of the undergraduate work quite proficiently. A 1300 from a student with no educational advantages may be far more impressive than a 1500 from a student from Andover. Beyond a certain threshold, and that threshold can clearly be debated endlessly without an objective answer, the test scores don’t matter - the student bodies of most top fifty or more schools are very able.</p>

<p>Probably the second most important criteria of a good school is nearly impossible to rank. What schools have the best professors depends on how you rate a professor - by publication or ability to teach, or some subjective combination thereof. For intro classes, I would think that publications would be almost irrelevent to the quality of the professor - and perhaps cutting edge researchers should not teach freshman intro classes. Rating teaching might a bit like the Supreme Court’s inability to define pornagraphy - they cannot set objective perameters, they just know it when they see it. Students generally do know who can teach because the professor who can convey the material clearly and in a reasonably engaging way will almost always be highly sought after. </p>

<p>I have not studied the rating criteria in depth. Perhaps the PA may be a very crude way to capture professional reputation of staff, but unless the raters have attended the rated school, it is hard to see any objective basis for such assessments. Perception ratings are interesting, but probably reflect very little about the quality of the education.</p>

<p>For all of the criticism of the rankings, there seems to be no consensus about how to improve them. Just listing colleges alphabetically by tier would reduce some of the arguments, but create heartburn about which colleges belong in which tier. Eliminating any sort of ranking would make it more difficult to find top schools for those unfamiliar with colleges beyond the Ivy League, Stanford, and some of the other usual suspects. </p>

<p>Perhaps very broad tiers arranged alphabetically would be useful. Within the top tier, admission rates and test scores will signal those schools that are hardest to get into for those who want to compete for that type of “elite status.” Within broad ranges, the schools with name recognition will still have name recognition. </p>

<p>The bottom line seems to be the educational quality is very difficult to quantify numerically. That difficulty does not mean that no attempt should be made. For all of the grousing about USWNR rankings, it was a brilliant marketing idea that sells lots of magazines. Smart kids applying to top schools and their parents should be able to figure out the merits and limitations of such rankings.</p>

<p>“For all of the criticism of the rankings, there seems to be no consensus about how to improve them.”</p>

<p>I would even ask: Why try to improve these stuck-on-paper one-size-fits-none rankings?</p>

<p>I would rather have a student go to the USNWR web site, enter her own characteristics (SAT score, GPA, etc.), enter general school characteristics (size, general location, etc.), her areas of interest, goals, etc., and the importance she places on various factors, and get back a list of schools, many of which would be unfamiliar to her. It would be an iterative process, trying out various inputs. Word would get out about how well it works, with USNWR earning significant fees from this premium service.</p>

<p>^ Search tools exist: [College</a> Navigator - National Center for Education Statistics](<a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/]College”>College Navigator - National Center for Education Statistics)</p>

<p>As was mentioned earlier in this thread, Maclean’s in Canada has a ranking tool much like what you describe. I believe they created it following massive backlash against their one-size-fits-all rankings (which still exist).</p>

<p>vossron, Princeton Review used to do something similar 6 years ago when I was looking for colleges. The tool was only marginally useful-- it wasn’t super accurate for me though it did put me on a few wild goose chases.</p>

<p>Not sure if it’s still possible.</p>

<p>I haven’t seen a tool with the comprehensive data captured by UNSWR that works well. College Board has a tool that tries, but its results can be way too amusing to be useful.</p>

<p>^ What data are you referring to?</p>

<p>Nothing specific, just all the data they capture. I suppose there is some they don’t capture as well, which could be useful. And maybe some they capture is not useful. ;)</p>

<p>Accurate data that one can access with personalized searches sounds imminently reasonable and beneficial to the consumers of higher education. Of course, unless it would be profitable, it stands little chance in this country. Thus, we have USWNR rankings!</p>

<p>

If it’s in IPEDS, it’s available on the College Navigator (post #63).</p>

<p>I think there’s enough available that way to build a list.</p>

<p>Well, when I wanted access to USNWR’s detailed data during our college searches, I paid the fee for the extra access, instead of buying the magazine, so they made some profit from me! (That’s why I said “Word would get out about how well it works, with USNWR earning significant fees from this premium service.”)</p>

<p>And, no, I don’t think they’ll stop selling the magazine with its outmoded and damaging rankings (re starbright).</p>

<p>“I think there’s enough available that way to build a list.”</p>

<p>Perhaps, but maybe USNWR has to do it to make it widely known and adopted. And it must have an easy user interface.</p>