Every year, rankings for more than 1000 colleges are released, causing a flurry of activity in the media, obsession by parents, and it only narrows the field of applications from students. While there is certainly nothing wrong with applying to a prestigious institution, few people understand the rationale behind the rankings, yet the significance of how they shape the application season is extreme. This is most evident when, despite the option of nearly 4000 institutions of higher education in the USA, a tremendous focus goes into just the top 100. What is US News & World Report? When a parent walks into my office with a copy of the latest rankings, I equate this to someone abandoning their retirement plans and buying property in Nicaragua because TripAdvisor called it the #1 place to retire. US News is a magazine, and one that ceased print production in 2010, though they have continued large following online with their annual rankings system. In fact, US News still will revitalize their print production once a year to make these rankings even more accessible. What Goes into the Rankings System? It would be great if there was some way to really say, "So and So school delivers the best education in the country," but that isn't realistic, is it? Many schools deliver an excellent education and what constitutes the best is really in the eye of the beholder. So how does one organization, independent from higher education, determine these elite rankings? While the criteria changes slightly from year to year, these rankings are based on the following criteria: assessment by administrators at peer institutions, retention of students, faculty resources, student selectivity, financial resources, alumni giving, graduation rate performance and, for National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges only, high school counselor ratings of colleges. As you review each one, ask yourself, "Is this really a big factor in my education?" Second, much of this data is self-reported. Is it any wonder in the frenzy of competition for the nation's best students we see a bit of misrepresentation in the data? Perhaps the one that gives me the most grief is Assessment by Administrators at Peer Institutions. A dean of admissions is asked to rate the schools he thinks are "good." What does he do? Well, he looks at schools in his area, schools he loses applicants to. How is a university president of a small liberal arts college in rural Massachusetts supposed to objectively comment on the vast schools in southern California? The same is true of high school counselor ratings. I have known a lot of HS counselors, and I am willing to wager some are not the best source of information. We often know where our students have gone, and in many areas of the US, students go to what is close and affordable to them. Financial resources is another example. Sure, it is nice for a school to have money, but what does this really mean for you? For example, Princeton University's endowment is smaller than Stanford University's, yet Princeton University's endowment per student figure is twice as large as Stanford University's. How much is enough? My alma mater's endowment is 2.5 billion dollars, higher than all but a select few institutions in the country, and yet it is a large public university. The University of Michigan has nearly 9 billion dollars and a tour of their athletic facilities would suggest that it spends a significant amount on its sports programs, whereas smaller schools have nowhere near the same resources. Retention rate is another factor that draws skepticism. At first glance, a school that keeps its students from beginning to end has stability and commitment, which is presumably a good thing. But does that really make it better? Schools with lower retention rates many have students leaving for reasons that would jeopardize its image: poor teaching, violence/safety on campus, disengaged or unwelcoming student body, etc. However, many schools suffer retention rates for reasons beyond their control. For example, a public school may enroll more first generation students or students of lower income because its rates are cheaper. It may also accept immigrant or migrant students if located in a region where these students are plentiful. When people need to drop out to work for tuition or to provide for a family, it says nothing about the institution and its education. Selectivity - A simple examination reveals a disturbing coincidence: there is a direct correlation between a college's rank and its selectivity (admission rate). The highest ranked schools, for the most part, have the lowest admissions rates. The same is generally true of yield (the amount of students accepted who enroll). What is a quick way to move up in the rankings? Accept less students. Schools have moved up the rankings in other ways. A school that accepted 68% of its students from the top 10% of their graduating class increased that to 95% in a future year. Up went their rank. Is their school better off? Consider this example: School A takes 68% of students from the top 10%. The remainder fall outside of that; however, those students come from competitive prep schools, average 1400 (of 1600) on the SAT and have a GPA of 3.8. School B takes 95% of students from the top 10% of their class; however, those schools do not offer rigorous HS programs, students are not involved in anything outside of school, and have test scores far below those at neighboring competitive schools. Which would you rank higher? It isn't all about the numbers. In sum, these rankings, which on the surface can be argued as being derived from a set of relevant criteria, actually mean very little to a vast majority of applicants. Should we be referring to these as the "best" colleges? No. None of these factors take into account why a college is best FOR YOU, which is all that really matters. Article: Do Rankings Really Matter? Article: Saving Juniors from College Rankings
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorOlder blog posts were for the UCLA Ext course "Using the Internet for College Counseling" Archives
February 2023
|