Shake-Up Coming in Ratings Industry?

[xiggi]

<p>Great, JW, I will take all that strawmen non-sense as a … Yep, Xiggi, you were correct in your assessment of the rankings. Moving the argumental goalposts all the time is silly. </p>

<p>Feel free to indict Prez Gann, if that makes you feel better. For the record, I believe that this incident was extremely poorly managed at CMC. An eery reminder on how the fake attack on a professor were handled years ago. Trying to be more Catholic than the Pope does not work well in that world.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>

Moving the argumental goalposts all the time is silly. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The goalpost is exactly where it was four months ago: your basic argument is that nothing of any importance happened at Claremont McKenna and that the USNews ranking system is “the best we can hope for.” Got it. It’s not terribly interesting, but, I get it.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>

It’s not enough to just measure inputs, the way the U.S. News-style rankings mostly do. Colleges and universities have to be able to provide prospective parents with data that will give them some sense of how much their students learn. </p>

<p>

<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/opinion/brooks-testing-the-teachers.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/opinion/brooks-testing-the-teachers.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[bluebayou]

<p>

Colleges and universities have to be able to provide prospective parents with data that will give them some sense of how much their students learn.

</p>

<p>While perhaps a nice (and naive) idea, colleges reject that notion out of hand, as does nearly everyone in the education establishment, all the way down to preK. Again, the ONLY reason that USNews can sell magazines is because colleges let them. In a way, it’s a symbiotic relationship, at least for the top dogs. Colin Drivers gets a lot of press for Reed just by ‘complaining’ about USNews.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

The goalpost is exactly where it was four months ago: your basic argument is that nothing of any importance happened at Claremont McKenna and that the USNews ranking system is “the best we can hope for.” Got it. It’s not terribly interesting, but, I get it.

</p>

<p>No, JW. No, you do not get it. And it has taken a herculean effort on your part to continuously mischaracterize my “basic arguments” in this and the parallel thread on the CMC forum. </p>

<p>When it comes to what happened at CMC, there is a world of difference between (correctly) stating that the misrepresenation would not have changed ANYTHING in the rankings and (incorrectly) stating that the misrepresentation was “nothing of importance.”</p>

<p>Oh well, some things will never change.</p>

[phantasmagoric]

<p>

In a way, it’s a symbiotic relationship, at least for the top dogs.

</p>

<p>Agreed, but it’s not just the top dogs who benefit. As many have argued, it does give lower-ranked schools an impetus to improve. To an extent it does encourage some to game the numbers, but that can get them only so far - and not really far at all. They do have to work harder to improve in real terms if they want to have a higher ranking, so reducing class sizes, improving graduation rates, etc. are the only solution. Likewise, those who are already ranked high have an impetus to maintain their position and/or to improve (after all, every college has a desire to be considered better than they are in their current position, even those who are already ranked in the top 5).</p>

<p>The disclaimer is that students should take rankings with a grain of salt, make their decisions on other factors, and the like. But the ‘symbiotic relationship’ ultimately benefits top dogs and non-top dogs alike. Of course, whether these benefits outweigh the potential negatives that rankings may inflict is a different matter altogether.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>Xiggi wrote:

When it comes to what happened at CMC, there is a world of difference between (correctly) stating that the misrepresenation would not have changed ANYTHING in the rankings and (incorrectly) stating that the misrepresentation was “nothing of importance.”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Xiggi, I don’t which is the more herculean task, your repeated attempts to frame an argument that virtually no one is making (that USNews will punish Claremont McKenna for its cheating scandal by taking it down a notch or two in the rankings) or, my attempts to get you to admit that something was genuinely amiss at Claremont McKenna. Thank you for rewarding my efforts.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>bluebayou wrote:

While perhaps a nice (and naive) idea, colleges reject that notion out of hand, as does nearly everyone in the education establishment, all the way down to preK.

</p>

<p>Well, you’ll have to take that up wiith David Brooks. If you read the whole article he notes the following:

Many people in higher ed are understandably anxious about importing the No Child Left Behind accountability model onto college campuses. But the good news is that colleges and universities are not reacting to the idea of testing and accountability with blanket hostility, the way some of the members of the K-12 establishment did. </p>

<p>If you go to the Web page of the Association of American Colleges and Universities and click on “assessment,” you will find a dazzling array of experiments that institutions are running to figure out how to measure learning. </p>

<p>

</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>

Well, you’ll have to take that up wiith David Brooks.

</p>

<p>Not me; you were the one that brought in David’s opinion column because, I assume you found something of value in it. Or perhaps you did not, but then you chose not to add your opinion or critical thinking to the discussion.</p>

<p>

you will find a dazzling array of experiments that institutions are running to figure out how to measure learning.

</p>

<p>Exactly my point. No such “measure” exists today. (And anyone with any semblance of a notion of neuroscience and learning, will recognize that no such measure will exist tomorrow, either; nor in the far distant future.) But OTOH, since the feds will pump in money to the project, there is a long line of “dazzling” education researchers ready and willing to work on the effort.</p>

<p>But thanks for supporting my point" USNews rankings exists because colleges have nothing to offer themselves. :)</p>

[xiggi]

<p>JW, I am afraid I cannot do anything to help you comprehending what others write. Repeating the same non-sense ad nauseam will not make it magically come true. </p>

<p>I suggest to revert to the other thread to rekindle your memory. But in the end, it really does not matter. My record on this issue and CMC over the past nine years speaks for itself. In terms of objectivity and accuracy, I believe it to compare quite positively to yours.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>Bluebayou wrote:

you were the one that brought in David’s opinion column because, I assume you found something of value in it. Or perhaps you did not, but then you chose not to add your opinion or critical thinking to the discussion.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>David Brooks doesn’t need me to defend his position. All he requires is paying some attention to what he actually wrote, which I’m happy to report, you obliged us in doing. Unfortunately, the result is the application of a little bit of a double standard:</p>

<p>

Exactly my point. No such “measure” exists today. (And anyone with any semblance of a notion of neuroscience and learning, will recognize that no such measure will exist tomorrow, either; nor in the far distant future.)

I’ve been reading David Brooks columns for a while now and though I don’t always agree with everything he says, the one thing he has always impressed me with is, his pragmatism. For that reason, I don’t think by the word “experiments” he meant a peer-reviewed, double-blinded, study involving MRI scans. :)</p>

<p>You’re welcome to that interpretation. But, then, now comes ther hard part: how to apply that same standard to a ranking system patched together from self-reported stats and an entrance exam consisting mainly of muliple-choice questions… :)</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>xiggi wrote:

JW, I am afraid I cannot do anything to help you comprehending what others write. Repeating the same non-sense ad nauseam will not make it magically come true.

</p>

<p>Sigh. I keep saying, “I get it.” You keep saying, “No, you don’t.” Who’s playing games here? Not me.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Really? Did you happen to miss my post 85 ? Getting it and misrepresenting my posts is not compatible. </p>

<p>Oh well, let’s move on. This is hopeless.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>^^post#85 is Exhibit A of what I’m talking about. You’re very good at telling people what your position is not, but, not very good at explaining what it <em>is.</em> Like I said, no one cares whether Claremont McKenna goes up or down in the USNews poll. You’re the only one obsessed by that possibility.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>I rest my case. You just did it again.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>Xiggi, I don’t blame you for being reticent; I don’t blame you for lashing out at others. You have a very tough row to hoe. Trying to thread the needle between explaining what happened in a way that makes credible sense while, at the same time, reassuring potential applicants that Claremont McKenna hasn’t suffered in any way, is a job that would normally be reserved to the college’s president. I think we can both agree that she’s done an even worse job than you have.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Nice theory that is, however, entirely belied by what I have actually written on this issue. </p>

<p>Keep digging.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>Phantasmagoric wrote:

To an extent it does encourage some to game the numbers, but that can get them only so far - and not really far at all. They do have to work harder to improve in real terms if they want to have a higher ranking, so reducing class sizes, improving graduation rates, etc. are the only solution. Likewise, those who are already ranked high have an impetus to maintain their position and/or to improve (after all, every college has a desire to be considered better than they are in their current position, even those who are already ranked in the top 5).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The goal of giving colleges an impetus to improve “in real terms” and the goal of measuring that improvement in terms of how it actually affect students, aren’t necessarily incompatible. David Van Zandt, President of the New School says pretty much what you just posted. However, he also added:

Although rankings make an easy target, they are not going away – and that is good news for students and parents. Better still, the New York Times reported recently that an effort to rank colleges by educational efficacy is gaining steam. Joined with other systems that emphasize other key qualities of universities, this new measure will ensure that prospective students will continue to get a clearer view of what they can expect from higher education.</p>

<p>

[David</a> Van Zandt: In Defense of Rankings](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>In Defense of Rankings | HuffPost College)</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>If there’s any group of colleges that could legitimately be described as part of the “educational establishment”, it would be the top LACs of the country. Last month, there was a conference where they figured heavily and where the topic of keeping down costs piggy-backed with the problem of how to measure quality:</p>

<p>

Brian Rosenberg, president of Macalester College, said liberal arts colleges exist at the nexus of “quality, distinctiveness, and social purpose.” If colleges are going to continue to attract students and survive, they are going to have to “deliver a better and better education.”</p>

<p>For that reason, the concern about a decrease in perceived quality looms large. Presenters pointed out that “quality” at such institutions has historically been measured by inputs, such as how much is spent on a program or faculty-student ratio. But liberal arts colleges and higher education institutions in general are bad at measuring outputs, specifically educational gain. Finding a way to show that instructional efficiency initiatives do not decrease quality will be a major challenge over the next few years if institutions want to drive down cost.

</p>

<p>[Lafayette</a> conference shows concern about liberal arts colleges’ economic future | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/11/lafayette-conference-shows-concern-about-liberal-arts-colleges-economic-future#ixzz1uIRTNzWR]Lafayette”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/11/lafayette-conference-shows-concern-about-liberal-arts-colleges-economic-future#ixzz1uIRTNzWR)
Inside Higher Ed</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>On 02/08/12 johnwesley wrote:

When all the dust settles on what you insist on calling “the Vos affair”, you’ll be lucky if Claremont McKenna doesn’t go to its waiting list for at least a third of next year’s entering class and President Gann doesn’t wind up “quietly resigning”.

</p>

<p>[Claremont</a> McKenna College president to retire in 2013 - latimes.com](<a href=“Archive blogs”>Archive blogs)</p>