Our obsession with college rankings
THE CRITICISM faced by Clemson University after an administrator admitted that the university took aggressive steps in order to increase its ranking in US News & World Report’s annual educational survey is indicative of a growing repulsion in some circles for college rankings. Some colleges, including Sarah Lawrence, are refusing to submit data in order for their school to be ranked.
But those looking to fault college rankings for our overly competitive college culture are looking in the wrong direction. The data summarized by US News tells students a lot they should know about schools they apply to. It is the public’s obsession with the numerical rank, and not the actions of US News or schools like Clemson, that misleads us into believing that some schools are innately better than others and pressures students into dreaming of schools that are not right for them.
The factors used in the US News survey provide students with valuable indicators of student experience. The ranking encompasses the number of classes with fewer than 20 students, per-student spending, student retention, and alumni giving. These factors reflect the value the university puts on students, the availability of professors, and the level of satisfaction of those who already attend. The rankings also provide a service to potential applicants by collecting and condensing a quantity of data that the normal college applicant could not independently consume.
The problem with college rankings is that they are inherently inconsistent with our expectations of objectivity. Data can be manipulated to hide a lot. Universities that are exceptional in one category but not others may go unnoticed, while universities like Clemson bounce to the top for reducing classes with 20 or 25 students down to 19 and piling on students in classes that already have 55. This may not increase the quality of classes, but it certainly helps in the rankings.
Our expectation that rankings somehow distill the excellence of a school into one number is unrealistic. Any formula will be subject to this sort of manipulation. Even if Clemson did not go out of its way to cut a few class sizes, is it fair to penalize them for having mostly classes with 20 or 25 students rather than 19? The criteria set by ranking systems are not golden numbers, but rough estimates of what schools should strive for. Distinctions between the 10th “best’’ school and 15th “best’’ school may be minor, and there are many metrics by which the school in the 15th slot beats others above it. US News does not have any unique ability to assess colleges. The only privilege it has over anyone else in assessing schools is a lot of data.
We make the biggest mistake in our conception of rankings when we take the applicant’s identity out of the process. Formulas cannot capture the most important qualities of a school. The feel of the student body and faculty, the environment, and the accessibility of certain programs and specializations are all dependent on the particular student and can’t be quantified. The rankings let us believe that selecting a college is impersonal: The top schools are better than those below, regardless of the applicant.
Some schools are trying to break the ranking companies’ monopoly on information by allowing students to tailor college searches to criteria they care about. In 2007, a statement signed by 20 college presidents announced that all the data they submit to US News will become available to the public. Students can use the data in a way that meets their assessment needs. This gives some students the opportunity to finally close the college guide book and assess colleges on criteria that matter to them.
Yet 20 colleges alone cannot change what has become a widespread misconception. If we do not start to see the imperfect and subjective reality of college rankings, we cannot expect colleges to do anything but act rationally by catering to them. If we believe rank has inherent value, an improvement in a school’s rankings means more prestige, better applicants, and more donors. Wealth and prestige benefit the university as well as its students, who are the paying customers.
Jaclyn Saffir is a junior at Brandeis University and an editorial assistant for the Globe’s editorial pages. 