Diver’s new book comes out on the 12th. He’s been calling out rankings for years.
Thanks. I never heard of the fellow until this article much less knowing he has an upcoming book release, but that’s my issue.
Nevertheless, he raises some interesting points. I liked his reference to CalTech shooting to Number 1 and then falling back down again.
These rankings are, to a degree, absurd. I guess I am still trying to figure out what degree that might be.
Ranking are the number one issue ruining higher ed in the US. Too many students apply to too few schools because they only vet on rank. It’s always blown my mind, because the the rankings are specious in the first place.
I used to swear by these rankings. Now, they are merely a data point to consider.
Diver’s point about CalTech says it all: the school shot to number 1, and perhaps students were sorely disappointed when it slipped if they banked on going to the number 1 school.
Perhaps CalTech is not the best example of the “farcical” nature of rankings. The Temple online business school fudged its numbers to become the NUMBER ONE online b-school in the US. Now, once the scam ended, it’s at the 100th place.
As I said, it’s only a single data point. I am FED UP with branding and marketing to get our family’s money. I wouldn’t do it for a car, and I am certainly not going to do with our kids’ education and future.
Somehow, Caltech students may not be too concerned about being ranked #1 or not, since Caltech is very much of a “fit” school, with its very high minimum academic rigor compared to other (even high ranked or prestigious) schools.
But then it is not surprising that some people like rankings, because they want social status, and rankings help them assert their place in the social status order. To the extent that some elitist employers will only hire from top-ranked colleges, there could be some benefit to those who graduate from such colleges, if they want to work at such elitist employers.
Of course, the name of your college is often based on what you were like in high school, and what your parents offered in support (financially and otherwise) for your education.
I liked his article. It was nice to see a point-by-point article why the ratings are pretty meaningless.
But note that rankings are pervasive in society. Examples:
- In spectator sports, people want to watch the best athletes or teams compete for the championship (#1 ranking).
- In participatory sports, people want to be the best athlete or be on the best team to compete for the championship (#1 ranking).
- When people buy consumer goods, they may prefer the #1 ranked product over competing products.
- When people apply for a job, usually only the #1 applicant out of hundreds of applicants gets the offer (the #2 gets the offer only if the #1 declines, etc.).
- In elite-or-bust environments (such as going from pre-med to medical school), being top-ranked (i.e. the elite) is far better than being merely good (which is still in the bust category).
- Class rank can be an important factor in college admissions (especially in Texas), so high school students compete for class rank. In addition, implied class rank is part of counselor recommendations because course selection rigor and overall academic achievement are to be rated relative to other students that the counselor has seen.
- “Grading on a curve” is inherently a ranking competition.
So it is not surprising that rankings pervade college selection, whether or not that is actually the optimal means of selection for the given student or whether the college rank actually matters for the student’s academic and professional goals.
Nope, but that’s why I referenced Temple online B-school. That’s the most egregious example. The CalTech issue just points to how widely varied the results can be over just a short period of time.
I appreciate gaming is on a spectrum. But there is no doubt it goes on at every point on the spectrum.
My issue is not with the kids. It’s with the schools where these rankings seem to be, in principal part, driving the money and other decisions.
Can anyone share if the article discusses what is in the last section of Colin Diver’s book? Basically, the solutions portion? I’m not sure how many more free articles I have for The Chronicle of Higher Education and if it’s mainly on the issues with rankings, I’ve read other articles (and books) about the topic. But the last book I read discussing some of the solutions is now a bit dated as many of the resources mentioned are no longer in existence. I do hope that my local library will be adding this book to its collection…
There was also this article recently
Would be interesting to see what he has to say about law school rankings and law job hiring, given his background as a law school dean and law jobs’ reputed law school rank focus in hiring.
We want to be told and then to tell that we got “the best.”
Malcom Gladwell was one of the earlier ones to call this out in The Order of Things.
I don’t pay too much attention to any of them but I do look at engineering occasionally. I find a couple of things funny. First, Harvard’s rise as an engineering powerhouse (farce is the right word for that). Second, I look occasionally at my son’s alma mater, Cal Poly. USNWR currently ranks them #2 in every engineering discipline, but #7 overall. How’s that?
He briefly mentions Penn Law’s ups and downs in the article. I didn’t realize he was so widely known for his views on rankings.
On law school rankings, I chuckle at the reference to “T-14” schools. That right there says a lot.
T-5, T-10, T-15, T-20, those I get. But T-14 sounds to me that whatever school that’s at the alleged 14 slot worked REAL HARD to get T-14 as the accepted nomenclature for “top” law schools. Some here mentioned it was Georgetown Law that was pushing it (for marketing purposes), but I don’t know.
T-14 is just extremely odd (and even!). As well as a “farce”!
ETA: There are 199 ABA-accredited law schools in the US according to Wikipedia (yes, I am lazy). T designations with a multiple of 5 seem more appropriate than “T-14”.
See, e.g., List of law schools in the United States - Wikipedia and https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/aba_approved_law_schools/
Rankings are very important as a recruiting tool for full pay international students. While this is a relatively new phenomenon (that is, not the reason rankings initially gained importance for schools), it has become an important reason for a lot of schools to try to hold onto their rankings.
Schools such as Harvey Mudd may not offer the range of defined engineering majors that Cal Poly does, and therefore may not be evaluated as highly for some engineering sub-disciplines. However, based on overall strength in engineering, HMC may still rate more highly than Cal Poly by those surveyed in the general engineering category for schools of this type.
Edited for greater precision.
Schools where doctorates are not offered are separately ranked. (I think ???)
Correct. Therefore HMC and Cal Poly SLO appear in the same general category.
Perhaps not surprising for some countries where the SES distribution is even more unequal than in the US, and the families who can pay US college list price are already in the elite SES levels of their countries, so keeping their kids in the elite level (rather than subjecting them to downward mobility) may “require” an even greater focus on elite college than for US upper middle class families.
That’s the thing…HMS is ranked in EVERY sub-category (Civil 5th, Computer 4th, EE 3rd, ME 4th), but they don’t offer ANY of them.