<p>2012 rankings came out today. Oberlin is the #24 liberal arts college (was #23 last year).</p>
<p>It looks like OC is on a slippery slope.Downwards and Downwards we go.</p>
<p>When those rankings first came out in the early 80s, Oberlin was in the Top Five. So it had a rather stellar rep at one point. Something changed in how ranking information was collected. By the 90s, Oberlin was out of the Top 10. I fail to see what has really happened that has led to what appears to be a continuing slide, or what Oberlin is doing about it, if they care. And I have to assume the college cares or they would not continue to participate in the survey. The college has slipped four places since my D2 was an applicant in the fall of 2008. </p>
<p>But how much stock should anyone put in the USNWR rankings? Who or what made this mediocre magazine the bible of college rankings that everyone must believe and put their faith? By what authority?</p>
<p>When I was in college in the 70s, U.S. News and World Report was referred to in every one of my circles as “Useless News and World Distort” and that was BEFORE they came up with the idea to create college rankings. A few years later, a mag that was about to go the way of the dinosaur comes up with this gimmick and now it is the world’s authority? </p>
<p>That they won’t take into account that Oberlin’s 4-year grad rate is distorted by the 5-year double degree program is but one piece of evidence that an accurate assessment is not being conducted. That they take into account how much money a college is spending on buildings and faculty salaries is another piece that strikes me wrong. That they don’t take into account Oberlin’s size in comparison to other LACs is another piece. Oberlin has to fill a class almost twice the size of comparable LACs in New England. Only Wesleyan is close to Oberlin’s size. What would Oberlin’s selectivity be like if the college only had to fill half the number of current seats? With 6,000+ applicants (more than most New England LACs)? And it’s funny how some schools that admit a higher percentage of applicants than Oberlin --and have fewer seats to fill, too-- are ranked higher.</p>
<p>Perhaps the people running Oberlin will come to their senses and start ignoring USNWR like Reed does. It certainly hasn’t hurt Reed’s popularity. Either that or demand USNWR do a better job of assessing Oberlin College.</p>
<p>Actually, Plainsman, the fact that Reed does not participate has hurt it pretty badly: most knowledgeable observers think Reed’s applications would be more robust (and thus its selectivity would be much enhanced) if it participated in the rankings. Most colleges simply don’t feel they have the luxury of declining to participate. Nor is Oberlin in the position of being able to “demand” anything of USNWR. Oberlin administrators have repeatedly tried to get USNWR editors to recognize how capricious and (from our perspective) ill-judged its methods are. They simply don’t care. What they care about is selling magazines.</p>
<p>Oberlin has not declined in any objectively measurable way since it was in the top 10 of the rankings–and in fact most of our numbers have <em>improved</em> over that time. What has changed is the way the rankings are calculated, which is arbitrary and unscientific. The largest factor in the rankings is a popularity poll conducted among college presidents and provosts and high school guidance counselors, most of whom have minimum knowledge of the institutions they are rating. (Seriously, who knows enough to compare the academic excellence of, say, Pomona, Macalester, Wesleyan, Oberlin, and Davidson, let alone all the other schools in the top 50? Yet that is the most important component of these ratings.)</p>
<p>It’s not as though Oberlin doesn’t care, because we know prospective students look at these ratings. And of course we believe we deserve to be in the very top echelon. But all we can do is try to educate people about what the ratings do–and do not–mean.</p>
<p>For further discussion of these issues, see the summer issue of the alumni magazine, which should be online soon.</p>
<p>This article is now up:</p>
<p>[PERSPECTIVE:</a> Should we care about rankings? / Summer 2011](<a href=“http://oberlin.edu/alummag/summer2011/features/rank.html]PERSPECTIVE:”>http://oberlin.edu/alummag/summer2011/features/rank.html)</p>
<p>And of course, USNWR makes a point of mentioning that their methodology and their school classifications change almost every year. The logic behind the changes is to make the rankings stronger, but the constant change in methodology also means that it’s impossible to make an accurate comparison from year to year. Does the difference between #23 and #24 actually represent a meaningful decline in the quality of an Oberlin education between 2010 and 2011, or is it just because a number got tweaked in an algorithm somewhere? If Oberlin’s numbers from the early 80s got plugged into the ranking method that’s used today, would it still fall in the top five?</p>
<p>“the fact that Reed does not participate has hurt it pretty badly”</p>
<p>Reed doesn’t think so.
[Reed</a> Magazine](<a href=“http://web.reed.edu/reed_magazine/spring2008/features/many_apply/2.html]Reed”>Reed Magazine: Many Apply. Few are Chosen. (2/5))</p>
<p>One thing I don’t really understand about the USNWR Liberal Arts College rankings, is that there seems to be apples-to-oranges comparisons in their chosen list of schools to rank. Specifically, why are military academies and women’s only colleges included, when they have self-selected, much narrower applicant pools? Forgive me if I am a dunce about this, or if this issue has been hashed out to death somewhere else on these forums, but can the selectivity rates (15% of the rankings) of these colleges be meaningfully compared to the rates of co-ed and/or civilian liberal arts colleges? Also, Harvey Mudd is first and foremost a math, science and engineering college, with humanities courses required of students, but again, with a very self-selected, narrower applicant pool than a liberal arts college that recruits students of all stripes. How can there be a meaningful ordinal ranking of colleges with significantly different student bodies and educational missions?</p>
<p>P.S. thanks Dave for the link - interesting article.</p>
<p>interesting article, but while it bemoans the size difference among the LACs distorting per student spending, it doesn’t mention the endowment disparity, which I would imagine impacts spending more than institutional size. Wiliams, Amherst and Swarthmore are more than double Oberlin’s endowment. (Williams is a third bigger in student size than Oberlin).</p>
<p>“(Williams is a third bigger in student size than Oberlin).”</p>
<p>Nope. Williams has 2000 students, Oberlin has 2950.</p>
<p>But it’s certainly true that Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore are far wealthier schools. It’s also true that Oberlin spends a much bigger percentage of its budget on financial aid than any of those schools.</p>
<p>What Vonlost said about Reed is true. They’ve gained in popularity. Would they be more popular or selective if they participated in that rag’s gimmick survey? One can guess “yes” but how do you prove it? They seem to be doing just fine by ignoring Useless News and World Distort. </p>
<p>It’s a shame that so many colleges are too terrified to not participate. It’s almost like a hostage situation. Like Dave72 said, USNWR doesn’t care about accuracy, they only care about selling magazines. And they’ll sell magazines any way they can. That rag would’ve disappeared if they hadn’t latched on to this rankings gimmick. They even publish rankings of hospitals. HOSPITALS! OMG!</p>
<p>“USNWR doesn’t care about accuracy”</p>
<p>There’s not even such a thing as accuracy in this context; the ranking for each individual applicant is different. Online tools like [College</a> Search](<a href=“http://www.collegeconfidential.com/college_search/]College”>http://www.collegeconfidential.com/college_search/) need to be improved and used; one-size-fits-none static hardcopy is outdated.</p>
<p>Dave72, obviously I meant to say that Oberlin is a third bigger than Williams; the point is, it’s not twice as big…</p>
<p>The proportion of spending on FA is misleading, IMO, because Williams and, I imagine, Swarthmore and Amherst, is / are known for meeting full need and needs-blind admissions, so even if the percentage of the budget is smaller, the financial needs of the students and the commitment to diversity that needs-blind admissions foloows is met. </p>
<p>My point is: if Oberlin’s endowment were on a par with WAS, then its per pupil spending might be, too…</p>
<p>The top five LAC endowments are bigger than most univerisities in this country.</p>
<p>FWIW, my kids didn’t look at, know about or care about rankings. I did, to a certain extent even though I know that these lists are NOT an indicator of institutional quality. At least in our home, however, I never said a word to my kids about these lists, and they made their own decisions. It came entirely down to fit and particular
interests.</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification, SDonCC.</p>
<p>Oberlin meets the full assessed financial need of all admitted students too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. While I don’t really care about the lists, I still looked at them. I had nothing else to go by, so it was one way to keep me pre-occupied and not meddle with the application/selection process. For the record, I also frequently read my horoscope and I buy losing lottery tickets every blue moon when I feel “lucky” (which usually coincides with headline-making jackpots being up for grabs).</p>
<p>One of the most entertaining features of USN&WR rankings is, well, the rankings. The use of numeric rankings suggests that they’re relying on a very fine-edged objective measure. Number 23. Number 24…the numbers come out and people draw conclusions from them because they use numeric values and everyone can interpret numeric values! Right?</p>
<p>Still, being #24 instead of #23 does have meaning…not in any rational, valid way, but in the still important sense that there are 23 other colleges that are ahead of Oberlin. The innate desire to be #1 is that much more elusive with one more college in the way – regardless of the fact that nobody knows exactly what that means or what it takes to be #1. There’s a self-esteem or pride issue here, not because I think the rankings are meaningful but because so many other people think they’re meaningful. As a parent, it would be nice to respond to the blank stares when I tell people where my son is attending college with, “It’s #4 according to USN&WR.” Instead, I say, “It’s in Ohio,” which is nice but – if we can be honest with each other – is far less satisfying.</p>
<p>So, yes, the rankings mean something. Not because they should mean something or because they mean something in some objective way but because there are lots of people out there who don’t have the time or inclination or expertise to reach their own conclusions. And I don’t mean to belittle those people because, frankly, the guy who works on my car, or the tennis instructor, or my mother-in-law shouldn’t be wasting their time trying to keep track of what’s going on with thousands of colleges and universities. They are who the rankings are for…and it’s because there are so many more of these other people who rely on the rankings that the rankings become (somewhat) important in a regrettable way to those of us who know better than to regard them as being reliable, particularly when applied to a specific student.</p>
<p>What makes USNWR rankinngs any more legit (accurate) or reliable than College Rankings 2011 (online, see my other threads on subcategories) or Fortune or any other magazine or web site? Why do people embrace USNWR? Because it’s the only one on every drugstore and supermarket newstand? That’s pathetic.</p>
<p>I just don’t like anyone or anything being held hostage by some self-proclaimed authority. I feel the same way about all those books that rank/rate “The Best Companies to Work For” or the articles on websites that announce “The Best Cities for Families” or “The Best Places to Live.” Really? They’ve evaluated --by living there, I hope, which is the only real way to tell-- every neighborhood in every city in America to come up with the definitive list? Come on.</p>
<p>Read the book “Crazy U”. Those rankings are all for the ego of the college. Focus on whats important…1)Pick a major you can get a job in, 2) Don’t borrow an arm and a leg to go to college. The debt isn’t worth it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand what you’re saying, but I did not give that advice to my two college kids. I couldn’t do that to them. My parents gave me that advice (pick a major you can get a job in), I followed it, and I’ve been miserable about that decision ever since. It’s not about the money I make. The money is fine. It’s about not enjoying what I do, in comparison to what I could’ve done had I followed my passion instead of my parents’ “practical” advice. Maybe I would’ve done worse financially, but I think I would’ve been a lot happier.</p>
<p>Revised #1: pick a major in something that you really care about</p>
<p>(hey, if you care a LOT about money, then go mercenary, I guess)</p>
<p>then add
1a - then do good work in that area</p>