Re-defining the ratings criteria

Parents Forum
1

<p>The spin generated from ranking systems such as USNEWS and Princeton Review has changed ("skewed" might be a better term...) the way we view specific colleges. Unfortunately sites such as CC tend to generate even more spin about these schools, some of which can be incredibly sophomoric if not downright misleading.</p>

<p>The negative effects include the current heightened feeding frenzy to get into the "highly-ranked" and hence, publically perceived "IT" schools -- particularly by niave or prestige-hungry parents and students -- even if these schools provide no better, and in some instances an inferior undergraduate collegiate education than lesser ranked schools.</p>

<p>On the insitutional level, many ordinarily level-headed colleges have recently embarked on frenetic marketing, promotion, and fund-raising campigns to increase public exposure to generate more spin to generate more applications to increase selectivity to lift them up in the rankings -- even if the school has not changed or noticeably improved qualitatively -- </p>

<p>ON scrutiny: I'd like PR to include a percentage of student responses received each year from each college. I assume they base their data on responses received for a given year - that these are not cumulative responses built up over time... or are they cumulative? That would be telling. </p>

<p>Since PReview's findings are based on student's voluntary responses that may not always reflect reality. I suspect many the respondents who take time from their busy school schedules are often the disenfranchised or the unhappy -- I also heaerd that some college admin. actively encourage students to respond to PR because is it is a great (and cost free) marketing tool... </p>

<p>USNEWS, the Holy Grail of college rankings, concerns me more - do people actually study the criteria they use to rank schools? What makes a college good? What makes a college the one that 20,000 kids desperately want to attend? Come on - no school is that much better than any other. It's a crock.</p>

<p>What are the most compelling and important criteria that produces an excellent undergrad. institution? Using USNEWS criteria, I have extracted the ones I find most important and why. I'd be very interested in your ideas. Would our criterias noticeably alter current rankins? I think so. </p>

<p>I</p>

<p>So here my top ten:</p>

<p>top 10% in grad class - (I think top 10% in a class is more important than SAT/ACT scores. If you can afford the prep classes and learn the testing techniques, any monkey can do reasonably well on SAT tests. It is harder - even if your high school is not be comparable to the top 10% HS's in the country - to consistently maintain a good grade point average - that usually shows motivation, hard work, decent study skills...</p>

<p>student faculty ratio: the dynamic and interaction between professors and students is critical to the learning process</p>

<p>classes under 20: small classes = more attention = more quality interaction and discussion</p>

<p>alumni giving rate (nix average alum giving - amounts should not matter as much as participation - schools should not be penalized because they turn more professors and teachers than t investment bankers and CEO's)</p>

<p>freshman retention rate (nix actual grad rate - too many variables can happento a person in four years (family deaths, lack of funds, changed goals) - but if kids really like their school, they'll at least not transfer out after freshman year...)</p>

<p>Selectivity, peer assesment, acceptance rate would all be out....</p>

2

<p>The top 10% rate can get sketchy. Many of the most rigorous high schools don't rank. Thus, a great number of the most talented applicants won't fall into the "top 10%" category - though they can easily compete with the top 10% group. </p>

<p>I agree that the degree to which we rely on rakings is out of control. Somehow, parents and students seem to have a hard time determining individual need and individual fit. When there is a lack of security in one's own ability to decide, one turns to the rankings for validation. Look at Xiggi's recent post about ED numbers - where he breaks the Ivies into three categories and makes a reference to "Poor Cousins" for Penn and Cornell. It's all quite ridiculous. </p>

<p>I'm not a fan of looking at schools based on whether or not they are Ivies (a football league?). Let's look at schools on a holistic basis - LACs & Universities. If a student can meet the admission criteria for the top 25, then nix all of the rank and start to look at those schools for what they offer - in NO certain order except that defined by the student's needs. </p>

<p>The only thing the rankings are good for is to give you a GROUP of schools to consider.....top 25, top 50, etc.</p>

3

<p>" Look at Xiggi's recent post about ED numbers - where he breaks the Ivies into three categories and makes a reference to "Poor Cousins" for Penn and Cornell. It's all quite ridiculous."</p>

<p>Momsdream, did you read my post, or did you skim to the part that discusses your favorite school? Before paraphrasing me, you ought to pay closer attention to what I wrote. In this case, it was: "The final group is the PC group. While it does not stand for Poor Cousins, this group does exhibit different dynamics." </p>

<p>My post discussed the differences in admissions among the famous Football League schools. In that regard, Penn does not have comparable admission statistics to Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. The purpose of the post was to illustrate the differences between the admission policies and the reliance on ED by some schools. </p>

<p>As far as any rankings go, people tend to agree when it shines a positive light on their favorites and disagree vehemently when the ranking turns out to be negative. In the same vein, it is possible to create any type of ranking that would demonstrate the superiority of almost any school, by using different criteria or weights. However, while the existing rankings range for utterly rdiculous to quasi fraudulent, the underlying information remains very valuable to make distinctions among schools. The major benefit of rankings such as USNews is that they make the effort to compile data and present data in an organized and accessible form. </p>

<p>From this information, anyone can create its own set of criteria, and compose an ego pleasing ranking, or use the information as a tool in an intelligent quest to find appropriate schools.</p>

4

<p>There already is an effort underway, the National Survey of Educational Engagement (or some such) that actually attempts to study what actually happens ON campus, rather than the other issues ("prestige", "money", "selectivity") that surround them.</p>

<p>None of the Ivies, and I think, none of the top LACs, have expressed any willingness to participate. Those schools (top 31) have their own network, through COFHE (Coalition on Financing of Higher Education) but they refuse to allow any information regarding individual schools to be made public (unless they choose), though I have a sneaky suspicion that PR managed to get a hold of it, which is how - in combined academic quality, quality of life, selectivity, and financial aid/scholarships - they came to rank Carleton, Pomona, Smith, Amherst, and Haverford the best undergraduate schools in the country.</p>

<p>(I happen to think it's Earlham. But I only have a two-person survey - me and their director of admissions, neither of whom attended - to back it up. ;))</p>

5

<p>Crash - Initiating a thread that challenges the status quo? You're my hero!</p>

<p>Speaking as the parent of a D who attended both public and private high schools, I can say that the "top 10%" criteria while theoretically sound does not measure students very well. Third quartile kids at competitive private schools in our area could have been vals at the their local high schools. Unfortunately I don't have anything better to suggest, so ....</p>

<p>I do have two suggestions that are not student metrics but which help define a college:
(1) The percentage of accepted students who actually matriculate; and
(2) The percentage of students who received financial aid grants covering at least half of tuition.
The former ranks colleges on the basis of "when given a choice, students choose this one" and the latter helps clarify whether the school is available to all who academically qualify.</p>

6

<p>I think adding a financial aid component in the rankings would be very helpful.</p>

7

<p>I don't pay much attention to ratings. I find them pretty useless myself. </p>

<p>When you start actually digging into the curriculum of different schools, that's where the information that matters pops up. Yes, it's a lot of work to really put schools under a microscope but it is MUCH more informative than just saying "Well, this school is ranked number 6 so it must be better in every way than the school that's ranked number 7" </p>

<p>The information that Mini mentioned in the National Survey of Student Engagement is VERY useful as well in terms of telling you what a student is likely to actually experience at a particular school - but, as Mini points out, very, very few schools are willing to share their NSSE data or even participate in the first place.</p>

<p>I also always like to pay attention to class enrollment caps. It's amazing how they differ from school to school --- and let's face it, what good are classes if you can't get into them?</p>

8

<p>There are many variables that go into evaluating a college. For example, one might argue that Reed College should rate ahead of many Ivies:</p>

<p>From the Reed website,
? Reed has produced 31 Rhodes Scholars since 1915, a number met by only one other small college in the country.
? Reed also ranks first among all colleges and universities in the United States in the percentage of its graduates who go on to earn a Ph.D. in the life sciences and third overall in all disciplines.
? Among liberal arts colleges, Reed is second in the nation in the percentage of future Ph.D.s in all disciplines.
? A disproportionately large number of Reed graduates found or lead organizations or companies; earn medical, law, or business degrees; write books; create notable works of art; or work to make life on the planet better for all. </p>

<p>I tend to put more stock in the Princeton Review's academic ratings. There methodology sounds more reasonable than the rest, combining student surveys, reported statistics, and selectivity:</p>

<p>"How hard students work and how much they get back for their efforts, on a scale of 60-99. This rating is calculated from student survey results and statistical information reported by administrators. Factors weighed include how many hours students study outside of the classroom and the quality of students the school attracts. We also considered students' assessments of their professors, class size, student-teacher ratio, use of teaching assistants, amount of class discussion, registration, and resources. Please note that if a school has an Academic Rating of 60<em>, it means that the school did not report to us all of the statistics that go into the rating by our deadline. Please also note that a school with an Admissions Selectivity Rating of 60</em> will have an Academic Rating that is probably lower than it should be, since the Admissions Selectivity Rating is a factor in the calculation that produces the Academic Rating."</p>

<p>It is interesting that none of the Ivies are in the PR top twenty for best Academic Experience.</p>

9

<p>This subject is a real thorn in my side. In my S's high school he has 3.79 GPA and a 1480 SAT and scored 750+ on 3 other SAT subject tests. However, he is only ranked in the 82%. Why? In my opinion this is largely because his school does not rank Honors classes. He did not take any fluff courses. His 11th grade Honors math course earned him the same "quality points" as a freshman photo class, or gym. The path that he took in HS was Honors Math and Science until senior year when he was able to take AP Math & Science. Kids whose strength was in SS or English were able to start taking APs in 9th grade. When weighting occurred at the end of Jr. year, he only had 2 AP's and with no weight given for the Math & Science Honors class he took - his GPA and class rank suffered.</p>

<p>He was compelled to skip applying to all of those schools who consider class rank as "very important". </p>

<p>Top 10% is not a bad idea, but it really does need to be combined with all of the other criteria to form a true picture.</p>

10

<p>"I tend to put more stock in the Princeton Review's academic ratings. There methodology sounds more reasonable than the rest, combining student surveys, reported statistics, and selectivity:"</p>

<p>Students reviews sole value is entertainment, and PR selectivity rankings are an absolute joke. For example, they give UC-Davis a selectivity rating of 99%. Princeton Review has some many ludicrous categories that someone could declare San Angelo State University the best school in the country.</p>

11

<p>Xiggi, I agree. I find the Princeton Review ratings enormously entertaining, especially when they rate a particular school as a party school and an academic heaven
Carolyn, I find the USN&WR ratings book extremely useful. It is helpful when I'm trying to fall asleep at night. It is handy for propping doors open. It can also be quickly placed under ice cold drinks that are sitting on good furniture when you here your wife or daughter coming.</p>

12

<p>Of course people are studying it the USNWR methodology--to the extent that they reveal it. Colleges and universities have a love-hate relationship with US News, and some of them are on the fence about whether to cooperatively work to improve the rankings, or uncooperatively keep their distance rather than endorse it. </p>

<p>I think NSSE has some promise. I think we need a pull--that is, students and their parents--or rankings and guidebooks--insisting on seeing NSSE results for all schools, if it's going to become so widespread that it could be used in college search. A lot of colleges have participated--at least 400, isn't it? But sharing the data may be another matter.</p>

<p>I think "value added" should go into a college's ranking. There is a real focus on the upper echelon of students, which ignores the vast majority of students who seek a college education. Let's hear it for the schools who gladly accept those capable, hard-working, promising students who WEREN'T validictorians and gives them a fabulous education.</p>

<p>The closest thing we have to a value-added measure in a national ranking is the "over-under" grad rate performance measure in USN&WR. That is, they don't just look at graduation rate, but how that graduation rate stacks up against national averages for students like the ones it enrolls. I'm very glad they include that, but graduation rate isn't a great proxy for school quality either.</p>

13

<p>


</p>

<p>That's my preferred methodology. Dig into the actual course offerings at the various schools, check the required textbooks out of the library, try to follow the syllabus for a while, and you'll get an idea of the caliber of a school. For the specific fields I care about most (because my children are most interested in those fields), my "top ten" list has some interesting additions and omissions compared to the general top ten lists. I try to follow what schools the most nationally renowned high school performers in specialized fields go to, and there is a pretty consistent pattern to that. A participant in the Mathematical Olympiad Summer Program will be able to find classmates with a similar background at only a limited set of schools, for example.</p>

14

<p>But that's just the problem Carolyn and Tokenadult - you both know better than to rely so much on information culled from the rankings game -but that's because you are educated, thoughtful, and also very familiar with US colleges and the college recruiting issues.</p>

<p>It is the novices, the newcomers, the students perhaps whose parents never went to college who I fret for because they are so impressionable. Lord, I was so impressionable when we began this with our first born (and I've got a doctorate)...</p>

<p>Why do so many buy uinto the rankings game? I've decided asdie from the fact that it can be extremely entertaining if taken with a grain of salt, its also because it is human nature to love hierarchal ranking systems and popularity contests. But it has its dangers, dangers so reminiscent of High School and the "popular" kid syndrome....
Forf instance, according to the rankings, Harvard is currently our Homecoming Queen at U.S. HIGH. Princeton, Yale, Swarthmore, and Amherst are on her court. They all won because they are up on all the latest fashions and phrases, they hang with the coolest people, and most importantly, they believe with all their heart they are Hot and expect you to buy into it, too (and if you don't, you're a"LOSER" lol) even though you know none of these girls are all they're cracked up to be -- they use alot of make-up to cover up scars; they can be really *****y to you (when no one else is around to witness them); they never have time to listen because they're too busy having their hair for the next beauty pagent; and they only take you seriously if you have a swimming pool or Daddy has a membership to the country club. And their grades? Ha! Harvard and Princeton passed Geometry last semester because their sorority sisters let them copy off their papers. And Swarthmore' riding on the laurels of her sister who was Homecoming Queen two years back and was really popular...</p>

<p>That's how this whole game feels. And there are so many girls who are worthier or just as worthy who maybe should have been on the court instead....they just didn't fit the criteria deemed important to the judges...</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
Princeton Review has some many ludicrous categories that someone could declare San Angelo State University the best school in the country.

[/quote]
LOL. And the funny part of this is, Xiggi, for some number of students San Angelo State (or wherever) is just that-the right or best place for those students to be.</p>