The College Rankings Revolt

Parents Forum
221

<p>
[quote]
I'm afraid I've joined the same circle-jerk I left months ago. My mistake! Those schools seeking to deemphasize the SAT have a different philosophy concerning what qualities they are looking for in a student.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not sure I understand the reference to "circle-jerk" but that is not important. </p>

<p>For the record, I have ZERO problems with schools seeking to deemphasize the SAT have a different philosophy concerning what qualities they are looking for in a student. After all, the pick the students according to whichever criteria they select. However, schools that opt for an different "route" should not be rewarded for their ... gamemanship. In so many words, schools that are not able or not willing to fill the USNews survey correctly should be ... eliminated from the rankings and listed in a separate category. I'm sure that schools like Sarah Lawrence should be thrilled to be unranked! But wait, that is NOT what they want: what they want is to have their cake and eat it too! </p>

<p>In the past, I have advocated for USNews to the RIGHT thing. Reed does not want to participate .... honor their request and ignore them!
SL wants to play the game of reporting partial scores ... drop them! Does it get any simpler than that?</p>

<p>I have also opined for several years that the peer assessment is NOTHING but an abject tool for schools to handicap their foes and reward their friends. The solution for USNews would be to present TWO rankings: one for the PA fans and one for whoever prefers objective data over blatant cronyism. </p>

<p>Were USNews willing to do that, we would have a perfect world. The PA could shine in all its subjective splendor and earn the kudos of the research public universities and non-coed schools that are correctly pegged, starting at the second column. The schools that provide partial or misleading data could have their own little fiefdom devoid of ranking. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, USNews knows very well that they HAVE to have a minimum response to their survey, regardless of the identity of the respondent, and that highlighting the gamemansship or make it moot would only ensure a further drop in the participation. They know that schools participate when it BENEFITS them. It just happens that some are more devious about their objective. Fortunately, they are easy to spot: just check LLoyd Thacker's list of misfits and rebels.</p>

222

<p>Link to Robert J. Samuelson on USN&WR College rankings in the Washington Post.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/26/AR2007062601687_pf.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/26/AR2007062601687_pf.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

223

<p>It sounds like Samuelson didn't read the Annapolis statement, he dangles the word "censorship" to sell papers, and deceitfully failed to mention which part of the survey (peer review) is being boycotted.</p>

224

<p>
[quote]
For what it is worth, many of the attacks hurled at the USNews --or at the growing commercialism-- seem to imply that having access to MORE information is ... unfortunate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Naturally, people interpret things in different ways, but I have to say that I've rarely felt that people who attacked USNews were saying (or implying) that more information was a bad thing.</p>

<p>Rather, the argument they seem to be making (to me) is that some students will weigh information in ways that don't illuminate the true issues of quality or fit. They may overvalue some of information provided by USNews, without examining why or whether it's appropriate. They adopt USNews' value system (deciding what makes a better college) without sufficient consideration of their own values. That concern may be unwarranted, but I think that's the heart of it. That's different from advocating that students should have less information.</p>

<p>I also think that some people fear that USNews leads to students gathering LESS information, rather than more. For example, someone who is very driven by USNews' opinion may have a school recommended to them--but when they see it is ranked by USNews below a certain threshold, they will strike it from their list without ever gathering other information about it.</p>

<p>On a more personal note, I think you've got interesting perspectives and am glad you share them, but your ongoing derision of of those of us who work in higher education makes me increasingly uncomfortable. I understand that my comfort is not your concern, but your vitriolic description of the work that my colleagues and I do is a real drag to read, and I feel it is unwarranted (IMHO). Just my $.02.</p>

225

<p>I would love to see a Venn diagram in which one circle represents those who rely on Consumer Reports magazine's judgments on consumer goods, and another represents those who do NOT respect the USN&WR college rankings. I bet the intersection of those two sets is pretty big.</p>

226

<p>
[quote]
On a more personal note, I think you've got interesting perspectives and am glad you share them, but your ongoing derision of of those of us who work in higher education makes me increasingly uncomfortable.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hoedown, I'm sorry that you might feel offended by my "constant" derision of people who work in higher derision. Rather than offering an apology, could I possibly point out that I my expressions of dismay at a CERTAIN group of people does not mean that I have no respect for the overwhelming majority of educators. I believe that the difference is very clear as the group I feel is CONTINUING to blemish the entire sector is easily identifiable. </p>

<p>In this regard, I won't offer any apologies to frauds such as Lloyd Thacker nor to the people who make a mockery of the integrity of the survey. For the record, you have often expressen that you and your institution goes to great lengths to answer every survey, and do so with accuracy and expediency. Further, your institution is obviously hiring people who are competent. However, can you really tell me that this is universal, especially in light of pretty clear admission of school officials that they DO manipulate the data to their benefit or simply DO not have the knowledge to answer the questions presented to them. </p>

<p>For the record, I do criticize the educators who I feel have been able to abuse a system where little accountability and excellence is the norm and not the exception, as well as the people and organizations that protect the bad apples without much concern for the rest of the basket or the constituents they are SUPPOSED to serve. </p>

<p>Lastly, I believe that my "derision" is rarely without the foundation of research and adequate documentation. I do not expect everyone --or even the majority-- to agree with my views or criticisms. I have no problems in recognizing my possible errors in judgment, and would gladly align myself with people who can show where I failed. For instance, in the case of Lloyd Thacker, I have read his Education Conservancy with the HOPE that his group could eventually develop a platform that is novel and worth ... implementing. Has this happened? Or do we have to remain satisfied with hollow grandstanding and ... nothing else. I do not criticize Thacker because he was a GC or wears jeans; I criticize him for being an underhanded hypocrite who panders to the "establishment" under the guise of serving the poor and abused public. His "ideas" are based on the notion that the commercialization of the education sector is destroying it, and that the "establishment" is a much a victim as students and their families. Yet, that did not stop the "gentleman" to obtain his startup funding from a group that surely has exploited the marker through ... a commercial venture. But he does not stop there: the other culprits are the parents who mercilessly push their children towards a deep precipice. And his idea of finding a solution is based on polling the same exact people who seemingly bear no responsibility in the current neurotic state of admissions, and conducting meetings that are close to the public. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed surely rules! </p>

<p>I find it completely unfortunate that a small number of educators have accepted the "leadership" of such a poorly defined organization. Of course, it should not be too hard for a cynic to recognize the motivations of a certain subgroup of educators. Transparency is most definitely NOT one of them. </p>

<p>Our society deserves a lot better.</p>

227

<p>
[quote]
For example, someone who is very driven by USNews' opinion may have a school recommended to them--but when they see it is ranked by USNews below a certain threshold, they will strike it from their list without ever gathering other information about it.

[/quote]
Well said, and this happens. I got a PM from a young lady who didn't apply a school poorly rated by USNWR, and then discovered why the low rating was given. She greatly regretted the decision, because the school turned out to be perfect for her, and she regretted relying on USNWR.</p>

<p>I'll say it again: A big problem with USNWR is forming the one-size-fits-all ratings. The information gathering is great; I am a paid subscriber to their on-line service.</p>