College Rankings: Defending the Indefensible
Economist Richard Vedder recently published a piece titled “In Defense of College Rankings,” in the Chronicle of Higher Education, 08/06/1).
Here he defends the soon-to-be-released U.S. News rankings, anticipating that “many in the Education Establishment will [trash] them… They will be labeled as non-scientific, elitist, poorly constructed, etc. etc.” even though they are “meeting a human need.”
I can’t agree with much in Mr. Vedder’s piece, except that the rankings are popular and that they sell. But I’m happy to be among those who will trash them—not for Mr. Vedder’s reasons, but rather because they are pernicious.
He cites Consumer Reports as a model. But colleges do not lend themselves to consumer-reports-style rankings, where measurements of quality are known in advance and can be quantified: for example, how clean a washer will get your clothes and how often on average it will need repair.
Much of what makes colleges effective cannot be measured in numbers. Every college is a unique amalgam with its own personality and community that places its stamp on education—on faculty who teach there and on students who go there. And more than anything, it is these subtleties that shape students’ attitudes, learning, and experiences.
These are considerations that rankings can’t even attempt to deal with, let alone compare from college to college. Moreover, the non-quantifiable part, the “reputational survey,” is a not only a joke, but there is also clear evidence that contributors try to manipulate it.
Let’s take Mr. Vedder’s example: “If you are paying $50,000 a year to send your kid to either Harvard or George Washington U, other things equal, the quality of education is likely to be superior at Harvard.”
He offers no basis for this statement other than the implication that because Harvard is ranked higher, Harvard is inherently superior. Is teaching better? Rankings won’t tell you that, because good teaching depends on a blend of factors, many of which are subtle and can’t be quantified. Just ask colleges; they’ve struggled forever to measure teaching effectiveness as part of tenure and promotion.
Yes, rankings sell. And since colleges mostly don’t change rapidly, to have a rankings farrago annually, U.S. News has to tweak the formula annually so that rankings will remain in the forefront and they can present a picture of colleges battling it out to move up the ladder.
But rankings are not merely imperfect because formulas are manipulated or because they are unscientific or whatever. They are pernicious because, although they may be attractive, they are not a good tool to help answer questions that at bottom matter most to a student: which schools will be the best match in terms of my needs and plans.
None of their fatal shortcomings would matter much if ranking if colleges were a harmless pastime. But they are not harmless. They have transformed how trustees and the public judge a college’s effectiveness. They encourage students to make prestige the centerpiece of their college search instead of figuring out what they truly want for themselves. And they are the foundation of the marketing engine driving multi-billion dollar enterprises that have transformed applying to highly-ranked schools from a ‘best match’ process into a trophy hunt.
Some have unfairly lumped independent educational consultants with those enterprises. It’s true that educational consultants are flourishing in this new climate, but that’s because we are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Our job is to help families sort through the hype and reduce anxiety by focusing on basics: helping students figure out what they want in a college, and then figure out who has it. And then help students master the skills of showing their best selves to colleges so that good matches can take place.
Related posts:
Wonderful article, Dodge! What a great president we have!
Dear Dodge,
Thank you for so clearly presenting the issue and clearing up the smoke and mirrors that rankings truly throw into the process. Families are confused because they want what is best for their child and often don’t recognize that what is best is measured in ways much differently than what goes into the rankings. The National Survey of Student Engagement might be a better measure, should they insist on one but, even this, is dependent on the dedication of the student and the hope that s/he is in an environment which will help him or her thrive. That, as you clearly say, is what good and ethical consultants do. Those of us who proudly wear our IECA membership know that our colleagues in the organization understand this and treasure our mission.
Charlotte Klaar
Dear Dodge,
As a relatively new educational consultant and a 30-year experienced college admissions officer, I couldn’t agree with you more. What I am finding in my consulting work is that often parents’ goals and students’ aspirations are wholly different, divergent, and sometimes dissimilar. To then choose a college based on rankings that do not take into account “fit” for the student makes the college selection process a numbers games rather than colleges choices that match student aspirations, academic profiles, and learning styles. Being a member of IECA has given me so many tools and resources to help guide students — a far cry from using a ranked list of colleges to help students find colleges that match their goals.
Dear Dodge,
It is unfortunate that so many people put so much emphasis on rankings such as these. Thus adding to our responsibilities, as educational consultants, the need to educate our clients with regards to the meaning (or lack thereof) of the rankings and stress the importance of the individual’s “fit”.