|
|
9486 in the collection
Presidents of 19 Top-Ranked Liberal-Arts Colleges Warn of 'Inevitable Biases' in Rankings
It is always interesting and informative to see who stands for principle and who waffles.
By Eric Hoover
Critics of college rankings tend to use harsh words when describing U.S. News & World Report's annual list of top colleges, and some have even called it evil (The Chronicle, June 29--See Below).
But the latest rhetorical entry in the rankings debate was relatively mild. On Friday, the presidents of 19 highly ranked liberal-arts colleges released a joint statement [see below] saying they were concerned about the "inevitable biases" in rankings formulas, and that rankings contribute to the "admissions frenzy."
Because of those worries, the presidents said they had agreed to publish institutional data -- about class sizes, graduation rates, among other things -- on their colleges' Web sites, instead of submitting such information exclusively to U.S. News and other publications that compile college guides. The presidents also said they would not mention the U.S. News or other rankings in "new" promotional materials because rankings "mislead the public into thinking that the complexities of American higher education can be reduced to one number."
The statement did not mention when or if the college's Web sites would reflect that change.
Signers of the letter included the presidents of Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Carleton, and Middlebury Colleges -- the six most highly rated institutions, respectively, in the latest U.S. News list of top liberal-arts institutions.
The names of those presidents were notably absent from a recent letter that was circulated by Lloyd Thacker, executive director of the Education Conservancy, in Portland, Ore., and signed by more than 60 college presidents. Mr. Thacker's letter, too, had urged presidents to stop touting their college's U.S. News ranking (The Chronicle, June 20). It also asked that signers stop completing the magazine's reputational survey, and that they help develop alternatives to commercial rankings.
In last week's statement, the 19 presidents described rankings as permanent fixtures, writing that "no degree of protest may make them soon disappear." And while supporters of Mr. Thacker's letter agreed to distance themselves from U.S. News, those who signed the new statement seemed to express an interest in working with the magazine to help "shape" its annual list.
Mr. Thacker had mixed opinions of the statement.
"While I applaud college presidents' effort to cooperate in what they see as serving their public-interest charge," Mr. Thacker said, "I'm disappointed if this is the best they can do, especially in times of high public cynicism about higher education."
However, Robert J. Morse, director of data research at U.S. News, was encouraged by Friday's statement.
"We are glad that these colleges want to work with us to make the rankings better," said Mr. Morse. "We meet with colleges regularly to talk about improving the rankings, and we will continue to do so."
Annapolis Group Challenges 'U.S. News' Rankings
Chronicle of Higher Education
June 20, 2007
By Eric Hoover
Christopher B. Nelson, president of St. John's College, in Annapolis, Md., says there is "real evil" in U.S. News & World Report's annual ranking of colleges. So he was pleased last week when he and his colleagues at other private colleges resolved to do something about it.
At the annual meeting of the Annapolis Group, which represents 124 liberal-arts colleges, members agreed to develop a Web-based information system that would provide families with "easily accessible, comprehensive, and quantifiable data" on participating colleges. The organization said it planned to work closely with the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities and other education groups that have begun creating such a tool to provide prospective students with better information about colleges.
Following its two-day meeting, in Annapolis, the group also announced that a majority of about 80 presidents who attended the event said they would not participate in U.S. News & World Report's annual rankings. (The group does not set binding policies for member institutions, which will continue to decide what, if any, information they share with the magazine.)
As announcements go, the Annapolis Group's written statement describing its plans was not dramatic. It did not call U.S. News evil, or anything else. But it did signal a "convergence" of strong opinions among presidents, according to Katherine Haley Will, the Annapolis Group's chairwoman and president of Gettysburg College.
"It was really palpable, the dissatisfaction not with U.S. News as a magazine but with how they're claiming the conversation about who's better," said Ms. Will. "We're the ones who ought to reclaim that. This isn't a system we feel comfortable with anymore."
The meeting heartened presidents who have long criticized U.S. News, and compelled others to see the rankings in a new light. Frances Lucas, president of Millsaps College, in Mississippi, said she previously had paid little attention to the rankings debate because her own institution was rated highly in U.S. News. But after learning more about the magazine's methodology and discussing the issue with colleagues at last week's meeting, she concluded that the rankings were based too heavily on measurements determined by institutional wealth.
"The worst tragedy is that leaders like me have been persuaded, oftentimes by external constituencies, predominantly trustees, to manage toward winning in the rankings," Ms. Lucas said. "I don't know of a college president that has managed to win who doesn't regret it in this way: that we have taken valuable dollars and focused way too much on attracting academically meritorious students instead of the poor ones, and that's just wrong."
Ms. Lucas said she planned to stop completing the magazine's reputational survey, which asks academic leaders to rate hundreds of colleges, and that she would talk to Millsaps trustees about the possibility of removing all mentions of U.S. News rankings from the college's promotional materials.
The heated discussions of rankings in Annapolis echoed the tone of a recent letter by 12 college presidents that excoriated U.S. News for providing misleading data that "degrade the educational worth ... of the college search process." The letter — which has circulated among hundreds of college presidents and now has 36 signatures — urges officials to boycott the reputational survey and stop touting their rankings.
Lloyd Thacker, the man behind the letter and founder of the Education Conservancy, hailed the Annapolis Group's actions as a victory for students. "It's an encouraging sign that college presidents are willing to do the right thing," Mr. Thacker said, "that they're going to step up and help this country think its way out from under the influence of the rankings ... and exercise some educational authority."
In a June 8 letter to Annapolis Group presidents obtained by The Chronicle, Brian Kelly, editor of U.S. News, warned them that bowing out of the reputational survey could have "unintended effects."
"The rankings have brought attention to some smaller and lesser-known schools, some real hidden gems," Mr. Kelly wrote. "However, if fewer peer surveys are completed and returned, the number of respondents rating such small, lesser-known schools could drop below a statistically significant threshold, placing these schools into an unranked category."
Many liberal-arts-college presidents have concluded that there are worse places to be.
Elizabeth F. Farrell contributed to this article.
President's Statement on College Rankings
September 7, 2007
I, and the other undersigned presidents, agree that prospective students benefit from having as complete information as possible in making their college choices.
At the same time, we are concerned about the inevitable biases in any single ranking formula, about the admissions frenzy, and the way in which rankings can contribute to that frenzy and to a false sense that educational success or fit can be ranked in a single numerical list.
Since college and ranking agencies should maintain a degree of distance to ensure objectivity, from now on data we make available to college guides will be made public via our Web sites rather than be distributed exclusively to a single entity. Doing so is true to our educational mission and will allow interested parties to use this information for their own benefit. If, for example, class size is their focus, they will have that information. If it is the graduation rate, that will be easy to find. We welcome suggestions for other information we might also provide publicly.
We commit not to mention U.S. News or similar rankings in any of our new publications, since such lists mislead the public into thinking that the complexities of American higher education can be reduced to one number.
Finally, we encourage all colleges and universities to participate in an effort to determine how information about our schools might be improved. As for rankings, we recognize that no degree of protest may make them soon disappear, and hope, therefore, that further discussion will help shape them in ways that will press us to move in ever more socially and educationally useful directions.
Anthony Marx, Amherst
Elaine Hansen, Bates
Barry Mills, Bowdoin
Nancy Vickers, Bryn Mawr
Robert Oden, Carleton
William D. Adams, Colby
Rebecca Chopp, Colgate
Russell Osgood, Grinnell
Joan Hinde Stewart, Hamilton
Stephen Emerson, Haverford
Ronald Liebowitz, Middlebury
David Oxtoby, Pomona
Alfred Bloom, Swarthmore
James Jones, Trinity
Catharine Hill, Vassar
Kenneth Ruscio, Washington and Lee
Kim Bottomly, Wellesley College
Michael S. Roth, Wesleyan
Morton Schapiro, Williams
— Eric Hoover
Chronicle of Higher Education
2007-09-10
INDEX OF OUTRAGES
Pages: 380
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next >> Last >>
|
