<p>I am proposing a new higher education ranking system that will result in better understanding of the value of different colleges and universities.</p>
<p>Current systems have grievous faults:
+ Distinctions without differences, wherein intense battles are waged based on the assumption that using absolute numbers for rankings implies absolute differences in quality or value, as if #20 was better than or #23 or worse than #17 (except to partisans of Colgate, who will complain bitterly unless their school is regarded as a top 20);
+ Ivy Envy, in which a limited number of other schools are lumped with the most esteemed groups of colleges in the world; an excellent example is the WSJs ranking of high schools, in which The Metric was whether seniors matriculated to certain selected schools (Harvard and Princeton, but not Yale or Stanford; Johns Hopkins and MIT but not Cal Tech; Pomona, Swarthmore and Williams but not Amherst and Wellesley; University of Chicago but not Duke)
+ Differences based upon mixed mission and size, in which rankers decline to compare rank LACs and research universities, then ruthlessly splitting hairs within those categories (e.g., Tufts and Rice)
+ East Coast Snobbery, in which incredible amounts of time are spent debating the intricacies of east coast-tilting schools while leaving schools west of the Appalachians out of the discussion, a la arguments over RPI vs. U Rochester vs. WPI with nary a mention of Cal State SLO </p>
<p>We need a common framework that will allow us to compare schools, even those with disparate missions (say, CMU and Claremont/McKenna.) That framework should also be national in scope, using an analogy readily understandable across the country and readily accessible for those of different cultures or countries.</p>
<p>So here are Keis Professional Baseball Rankings of Colleges and Universities. </p>
<p>First is the All-Star team, the 25 (or even 32, under recent rules lamented by purists) of the Best Colleges and Universities, whether fleet of foot singles hitters (like Swarthmore), home run hitting sluggers (like Cal Berkeley) or Hall of Famer pitching aces like the HYP troika.</p>
<p>Then there are the Major Leaguer regulars, the day-to day position players and go-to pitchers that major leaguer baseball teams rely upon day in and day out, specialists like Haverford, high average hitters like USC and UCLA, innings-chewing pitchers like U Wisconsin-Madison and UCLA, and fantastic closers like Haverford and Penn States Schreyer College.</p>
<p>But no Major League Team could make it to the World Series without role players. They do not play every day but, when the right situation arises, they are a key to victory for a team (and, by analogy, for some students). Think of pinch running and stealing second for the Sox against the Yanks in game 4 of the 2004 ALCS, then consider important role schools like Beloit, Centre College, Pitt or UVM. </p>
<p>This model works because, like baseball players, colleges come in all sizes, locations and strengths, and Baseball General Managers put together their teams not based on a single metric (say, OBP or ERA) but by recognizing that different strengths are needed for different situations . . .and different seniors will align with those different strengths as they matriculate. .</p>
<p>So heres my Higher Education All-Stars:
Harvard, Stanford, Swarthmore, Princeton, Amherst, Cal Tech, MIT, Brown, Yale, U Chicago, Williams, Dartmouth, Cornell, Duke, JHU, U Penn, UC Berkeley, Columbia, U Michigan Ann Arbor, Wellesley, Harvey Mudd, UVA, AF Academy, Pomona, and Grinnell.</p>
<p>Kei</p>