Like the college-bound high school seniors it seeks to serve, U.S. News and World Report's America's Best Colleges turns 18 this season. This guide, and a score of others, are the vehicles of choice for millions of high school students who'll start their college searches this fall.
Much to its editors' credit, the U.S. News guide has evolved from its formative years. Yet its basic and fatal flaws remain. Academic reputation - the opinions of presidents, academic deans and admissions directors - count for a full quarter of each institution's "grade."
The guide is founded on the outmoded belief that full-time enrollment is the most appropriate pattern for post-secondary matriculation. And it pays only the scantest attention to college mission and outcome.
The U.S. News guide is based on resources and reputation, a concept that disavows the basic premise of progressive society: It's not what you have that counts, but what you do with it. Thanks to Deming and TQM, which began the transformation of American business about the same time as U.S. News' ranking scheme hit the streets, outcome has become more important than input.
Because it presents itself as an accurate assessment of the relative merits of four-year degree-granting colleges and universities, the U.S. News guide sparks a violently bipolar reaction among presidents and deans. We love to tout its results (assuming we're top-rated), but we hate its methodology. Along with reputation, it bases its rankings on graduation and retention rates, faculty resources, student selectivity, financial resources, alumni giving and 3/4 for national schools 3/4 graduation rate performance.
All, with the exception of retention and graduation, are indicators of inputs.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Guides such as the one by U.S. News (I resist calling it America's Best Colleges because the title begs the question "best for whom?" and ignores hundreds of colleges the names of which include the word "community") present institutions as static when, they are in fact quite dynamic. Generally speaking, wouldn't you rather encourage your children to attend a college whose fortunes are on the ascent rather than in decline?
Though four of 10 college students attend part-time, U.S. News and other guides base their data on full-time students and penalize institutions with significant part-time enrollments.
Equally out-of-date is the guide's penalty levied on institutions that employ significant numbers of part-time faculty. I suppose editors of such guides believe that if one works, one shouldn't teach.
Hmm. Numbers of full- and part-time students and faculty should be accurately reported for each institution, allowing consumers to draw their own conclusions about the efficacy of the mix.
With the exception of the category in which an institution is placed, little attention is paid by editors at U.S. News' and other's guides to institutional mission and their expectations for students.
True, institutional mission statements are rarely clear and often couched in language that's hard even for academics to understand precisely.
Yet each college's student recruitment literature is often quite specific about the outcomes the institution intends for its students. Would it not be prudent to ask institutions to back up their claims with data?
Some universities conduct regular alumni outcome and satisfaction surveys. While such efforts rely on self-reported data, they are still better than relying on the ability of a university to attract well-credentialed students as the primary measure of institutional quality.
To paraphrase Dr. Seuss, remember that using the rankings in college guides is like eating popovers - delicious and buttery - but composed mainly of hot air.
by Neil George
Knight Ridder-Tribune
Neil George is executive vice president and vice president for academic affairs at Webster University in St. Louis, Mo.
Readers may write to him at: Webster University, 470 East Lockwood, St. Louis, Mo. 63119, or at georgenj@webster.edu.
