Midd Blog, USNWR Rankings and more

Colleges and Universities A-Z Middlebury College
21

<p>

</p>

<p>I’d question it more if the ranking critera hadn’t changed considerably over that time period. Every year they tweak how they do it, even going to far as adding and subtracting it. Just one of those, for example, is alumni giving. As we see, Midd has done very well in this sector. Condemn the rankings, if you wish, but in five years the combination of improvements that would have Midd moving up regardless and the evolving criteria in and of itself make it far less suspect, if at all. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I will preface this opinion with the fact that I recognize that I come from a white middle-class (some would undoubtedly say upper middle class) upbringing and current lifestyle. However, to say that meaningful diversity is achieved by merely admitting the poor is to miss the larger effect that one aspires to achieve thru diversity.</p>

<p>For such a small school like Midd, it’s international contingent and focus is a huge benefit to its students obtaining a wide world view. That there is a true mix of all students on financial aid (from those qualifying for pell grants to those who may only qualify for a few thousand) allows the class (and the greater population of the community) to meld to form a broader whole. To have only the poor and the wealthy ends of the spectrum would do more to segregate a campus than integrate it. The middle are typically the one who build the bridge because they can understand aspects of both sides. Add to that the possibility of international students not entitled to gov’t loan programs and you are ignoring, especially in Midd’s case, a substantial aspect of diversity goes missing completely. And this speaks nothing to those students who might well have qualified for pell grants had they been U.S. born.</p>

<p>Personally, I appreciate looking at diversity in a socioeconomic standpoint vs skin color. As we know, Middlebury (inexplicable to me) has a hard time attracting and retaining black students or more specifically African American black students (seeing as kids hailing from someplace like the caribbean might well be black but certainly not African American). However, one might also consider that schools who participate in questbridge program might well draw a larger share of blacks to their already highly ranked schools. It then has to be remembered that the highly ranked schools (some who offer no other merit aid) are then not the only ones bearing the cost of educating that student beyond govt funding (AKA Questbridge scholarship). Not hating on the program in the least, or wondering what the criteria of the program is etc, but just pointing out how beefing up diversity within the narrow measure used by USNWR is possible</p>

<p><end scene=“”></end></p>

22

<p>

</p>

<p><em>Sigh</em>…That’s the point. </p>

<p>You’re admitting b/c the criteria /is considerably changed and tweaked/ every year there are significant ranking moves. If it wasn’t the rankings essentially would remain the same from year to year. There would be number changes, but slowly. You can’t keep moving the goal posts and expect not to create cynicism. Who’s to say criteria used this year is superior to 2004?</p>

<p>Why are Williams and Amherst continually tied one year but not another? What changes every 12 months to dictate the seesaw?</p>

<p>fwiw-Alumni giving is only 5% of the ranking. A few percentage point rise in giving would have little effect. And I’m not condemning the rankings. I hope Midd becomes # 2 behind Williams so I can have fun with my Amherst friends.</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>You’re preaching to the choir. :)</p>

24

<p>I wrote this post about how improvement in one area would clearly benefit the other… and then POOF it was gone.</p>

<p>But… let’s follow “the money” as they say… </p>

<p>Freshman experience points: Increased points for commons (even though kids who went through the transition thought it sucked and might still), improved freshman experience by housing freshman seminar students together, capstone projects for all seniors) I don’t think any of these things specifically were part of Midd 6 years ago.</p>

<p>Midd has also spent a great deal of money on their resources to professors and students over the past six years (some say irresponsibly so) but even Williams somewhat admits that the growing draw to Midds physical plant was part impetus for them to build their new flashy student center.</p>

<p>So now you start drawing better professors because of better facilities (another measure of success according to USNWR), and THEN people are trying to lure your professors away. Answer? Raise their salaries. ALL of these things, this domino if you will, contribute to a better ranking. I don’t think it’s strange at all that the improvements that Midd has made are also those things used to determine a good school by USNWR.</p>

<p>And so, tweaking MAY have contributed somewhat, but not as much as actual master improvement. If you read the Middlebury Initiative (another thing that suffers somewhat mixed reviews), Midd is only halfway through that. At least some of these changes have been either brought to bear or are via development in that plan.</p>

25

<p>

</p>

<p>You are aware of the overabundance of great professors? Midd attracted the finest professors long before a few bells and whistles. Tenure is so difficult to achieve the turnover of young professors is much higher than I’d like. It’s the same at all the top LACs. It much more financially prudent to continually add new professors than award tenure.
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but Midd’s professors aren’t receiving pay raises because other colleges are attempting to lure them away. Doesn’t happen. Trust me :wink: Now, if Midd was a research University and had a few stars in their field, different matter alltogether.</p>

<p>Again, you’re preaching to the chore.</p>

26

<p>Is it raining today where you are? :)</p>

<p>In any event, admittedly I don’t get my information from anywhere when it comes to salaries, I just “presumed” certain things: if you have “A” than you get “B” and if you have “A” and “B”, you have an increased likelihood to achieve “C.” And if you have ABC, you become #4 on the USNWR rankings. :)</p>

<p>How much money has Midd put into bldgs etc the last 10 years? So according to usnwr this WILL benefit professors and students with better resources. </p>

<p>But you’re right, I don’t have all the facts per say and I certainly don’t work for either Middlebury OR USNWR. Now, I am very capable of doing the research to better answer the questions, but I’ll just take pleasure in #4 and leave it at that.</p>

<p>But here’s something to think about … Wittenberg University was at the top of the Tier 2 back in 2003. Now it’s a Tier 1. I have no idea what theyve been doing since 2002, but I also know that back then they were listed among the colleges that change lives. How does PR in that vein contribute to the increase on USNWR? I don’t really know, just another example of rampant movement but somewhat otherwise buried between the top and the bottom.</p>

27

<p>Do you as parents room with your student at college?</p>

<p>Middlebury College (next to Swarthmore College) is number one on CC, particularly when you consider the DAD’s and often MOM’s postings.</p>

<p>You dad’s remind me of my Boys and Girls Club’s fathers at basketball, always barking, coaching and cheerleading their sons on to the point of asphyxiating paralysis.</p>

<p>We need to hear from more students and others as to objective critique rather than barkers and cheerleaders defending the colors of their respective student’s institutions.</p>

<p>Rankings are important and each individual ranking has its merits. We should look to the value in each one. Success is not merely attributable exclusively to rank and prestige, but it helps when you have talent. There are many ways to find success within one’s life and only we can measure up to the standards we create for ourselves.</p>

<p>Thanks for constructive commentary as these provide support and insight to prospective students, challenged by their choices. Often a number of replies overshadow the stress for the choices students face.</p>

28

<p>

</p>

<p>Wittenburg was ranked ~ 114 in 2003 and is now 118. The ranking hasn’t changed, the tiers have. There is no longer a tier two. Tweak tweak.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You could ask where I live instead of checking the Doppler radar. :)</p>

29

<p>

</p>

<p>Not even close. Smith has many thousand more postings than Midd…but who’s counting :rolleyes:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ve heard no woof woofs. Who’s barking? Haven’t encountered any paralyzed kids, either.</p>

30

<p>Truth is, it WOULD be nice to have more student perspectives on this website, I agree. But I don’t think many students truly consider alumni giving, college management, etc. remotely interesting for a lot of reasons. They seem to care about programs of study, dorms, facilities, and then people, personalities, cliques and all the other intangibles that are purely unquantifiable. THERE is where this thread in general could use a lot more current student perspective.</p>

<p>But just because you’re not particularly interested, I didn’t see this as a barking OR cheerleadling of anything but rather a (reasonably) intelligent exchange of perspectives (albeit some more flawed than others). But this particular thread isn’t of a subject matter that interests the students per say, but as someone who is paying the bill or for parents in general… it might be different.</p>

31

<p>

</p>

<p>They’re all on Facebook.</p>

32

<p>"I’m thrilled Midd has gained in the ranking. But all the rapid rise does is validate the thesis Nicholas Thompson–a highly respected educational journalist - presented in his article. Changes at colleges move at a glacial place. <em>Any</em> college that moves by the percentage Midd has in a short 60 months, did so by either the college or USNWR finessing the numbers. USNWR is in the business of selling magazines; the ranknings issues is their most lucrative issue. If the rankings remained static, well… kill the golden goose comes to mind. Why buy the mag? </p>

<p>Barnard is ranked # 30. Columbia University and all its facilities are an integral part of a Barnard education. Do you really believe the top LAC’s- ranked 20-29 spots higher than Barnard, are that much better than, in effect, an Ivy?"</p>

<p>I think it’s worth noting that for Middlebury, being ranked 11th was the aberration. They had previously been ranked consistently in the top 10. There tends to be a lot of movement within the top ten schools (with the exception of the top 3). To be fair, their movement has really been from 8th to 4th - and they’ve been ranked 5th for the last three years straight, so I wouldn’t characterize this as having been a big jump. </p>

<p>I also remember that Midd’s last President (after whom the spectacular science center is named) when asked what they were planning to do to address the fact that Middlebury’s rank did not represent the quality of education received there, insisted that they would continue to provide the best undergraduate education available. He said he would not follow the rankings, but rather, lead education. I’m aware that some of that could possibly be simply talk, but I think it’s more likely sincere expression of philosophy. I can’t imagine the current president feels much differently. I think the one thing that has likely had the greatest impact on Middlebury’s ranking is, as Arcadia pointed out, the fact that the greater public has finally become aware of this amazing place in Vermont where you can get a world-class education.</p>

33

<p>In keeping in line with rankings and bringing in the idea (and future implementations ) of cuts, there is a video now on Midd’s website regarding an open meeting on staffing/faculty cuts held on August 14, They will have another such meeting end of the month. In the meantime, the committee will meet and make some analysis of the information gathered from all the departments. Blah blah blah. End result in my eyes, is if you want to know more (and I feel they are very much an open book on the process itself, it’s difficulties and how it might play out), watch it for yourself.</p>

<p>This said, at about 43.30 minutes into this thing, Pres of College refers to the rankings directly and says, we do not manage to the rankings. He then went on to say that a few years ago they only reported 52% of SAT scores to USnews and world report. ANd when they decided to submit ALL SAT I & II scores (as now the process stands that you can submit only ACT, only SAT I or three SAT II to meet standardized test requirement). So when they submitted all scores (of all SATs submitted and I suppose you could submit ACTs AND SATs as many do), their percentiles went down in terms of 25%-75% scores. There was a pushback at the time to say this was going to affect our rankings, but he pointed out another factor. Rankings also take into effect graduation rates. Low and behold, as they got more breadth of students applying because they felt the school somewhat better attainable, their graduation rates shifted upward as bonus (another factor used in the rankings). And frankly, as a parent I’d much rather see my kid at a school that graduates 96% (or whatever it is) to one that graduates 70 or 80% after 6 years. So still, with more honest representation of who the school was, the school went up from 11 to 5 (and now 4) in the rankings. I thought he presented it well. Others will surely disagree. But since Arcadia and I more or less cross posted, I will add that he is correct to say the current president feels very much the same. “We do not manage to the rankings.”</p>

<p>In terms of today’s cuts and these same semi-concerns about how the cuts themselves might affect rankings, he spoke to the bottom up approach that has included the community as a whole in making what are undoubtedly hard decisions. It was also pointed out that rankings will be relevant to the cuts made by MOST institutions, including huge ones at Harvard and other smaller peers.</p>

<p>I really liked what Liebowitz had to say about the rankings in general. But I will admit I am very much interested in the programmatic changes the school will make and how quickly some things that contribute to student life will be eliminated. It is, however, very nice to know that they seem to be taking a very deliberate and comprehensive look at the entirety of the campus and its programs before just slashing hugely. While I don’t have examples of how others are doing it, I don’t see many being as forthcoming with their information, this is certain. I will also say that, although this is only but a first impression, I think the responses are genuine and thoughtful.</p>

<p>I will look forward to hearing the results of their retreats, future open meetings and maybe even a report from what transpires at the faculty breadloaf meeting that proceeds school starting here in just a few weeks. But I recommend watching for yourself as I surely don’t want to be the only voice interpreting what was put forth. Yes, it’s an hour long and yes, it gets a little ridiculous that in watching you can’t hear the question. Fortunately about a half hour in they start repeating the question on mike so you know to what they’re responding. :slight_smile: However, an additional wireless mic might be helpful in the future.</p>

34

<p>

</p>

<p>This is an excellent and balanced study by one of the most esteemed educators and researchers in academia. [Ronald</a> G. Ehrenberg :: Cornell University](<a href=“http://faculty.cit.cornell.edu/rge2/]Ronald”>http://faculty.cit.cornell.edu/rge2/)</p>

<p>Please read the entire article before making a judgment. </p>

<p>Cf. Urban, Modadunn and Arcadia, as usual your posts are excellent, considerate and informative. Thanks.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=workingpapers[/url]”>http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=workingpapers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

35

<p>I will read the entire article at some point, but as a brief comment, this speak exactly to Liebowitz’s point: By reporting ALL Sat scores the college received, the actual marker of 25 and 75% shifted downward. In fact, the higher numbers were actually alienating some kids from even applying. And I paraphrase when he said, “this is not who we are.” In any event, by offering more information, instead of less, the school reaped the benefits as other numbers also came to bear (as I said in my domino approach, flawed as it was :)).</p>

<p>So I think what is said mostly is to look at the rankings with some perspective. What good does it do to have perfect 1600’s the norm if half the kids end up not finishing or are lost due to attrition.</p>

<p>The other thing mentioned at the end of this video (and as a full pay I have no idea how it works at Midd) was that financial aid is the second largest line item in the budget. It was also mentioned that there needs to be some sensitivity to the school’s constituents… parents paying the bills and along with everyone else, also have less to spend. I think those schools that have been using a great deal of money from their endowments to fund no loan programs are in for a quicker and deeper cuts than schools who meet full need in a variety of ways. However, like I said, I make no claim to understand how well or not so well Midd carries out this part of their mission.</p>

36

<p>I guess, I don’t understand how admitting lower qualified students contributed to a higher graduation rate. Is Liebowitz saying the smarter students were dropping out?</p>

37

<p>

</p>

<p>The proverbial knife cuts both ways. By lowering the reported SAT averages more students applied, thus lowering the admission percentage… hence, appearing more selective in the rankings. Not reporting Feb fresh helps too. :wink: </p>

<p>There has not been a lowering of matriculated students SAT scores, only how they’re reported. The graduation rate of ~ %88 has remained constant for years, regardless of SAT reporting variables.</p>

<p>I’ll admit I was confused until listened to the vid.</p>

<p>The graduation percentages did not "shift upwards.” Liebowitz made a concerted effort to mention the unintended consequence of lowering the SAT scores was the ‘expected’ graduation rate, as computed by USNWR, was ‘lowered’ because of lower SATs but the graduation percentage remained the same. This in turn produced a ‘higher relative’ (relative being the operative word) graduation rate than expected by reported SAT scores, giving Midd a higher ranking. In other words, lowering the reported SATs didn’t change the graduation rate one iota, only a lower ‘expected’ graduation percentage.’ Advantage Midd ;)</p>

<p>A quip popularized by Twain seems appropri</p>

38

<p><picking up=“” my=“” 10-ft=“” pole=“”>

</picking></p>

<p>I know you don’t believe this. Are you suggesting that the only measure of a qualified student is his/her SAT score? Tsk tsk.</p>

39

<p>my bad. substitute the word “testing” for qualified. But, Crewdad explained it as well as anyone. By reporting only the 52% who voluntarily submitted their SATs, the admin was actually shooting itself in the foot. Why? Because the folks at USNews in their infinite capacity to, as you so eloquently put it, “improve” the rankings year after year, started doing something no one had anticipated: they imposed a “value-added” category that awarded points to schools who graduated a higher than anticipated percentage of seniors based on their pre-frosh scores. Of course, this also had the completely intended consequence of subtracting points from schools which, like Middlebury, were exaggerating their seniors’ pre-frosh scores. So, Midd went from #6 to #11 in one year, shocking everyone. Their decision to fully disclose ALL pre-frosh scores a year later had the completely UN-intended (or, which is it?) consequence of lowering their middle 50% scores, but lifting their place in the USNews poll because the “value-added” category actually worked in its favor that year.</p>

40

<p>I believe Midd never went from 6 to 11, but rather 8 to 11, but I guess that is incidental (and we can verify that). What matters is that Middlebury was criticized for not reporting all the scores, and now it is, so are we now criticizing it again for reporting all the scores??</p>