Is it wrong to manipulate university rankings?
Jun 9th, 2009 by Bryan
For a couple of years, Furman has been among a group of colleges and universities to lodge formal protests against the US News and World Report College Rankings. Those of you not in academia have no idea how much these rankings weigh on the minds of administrators. These numbers have a real impact on perception of the school, and thus on application rates.
Another university here in the Upstate has made news recently in another way: Clemson has been intentionally manupulating their policies and reporting strategies to give themselves the best ranking possible. My reaction: well, of course they are. And so is everyone else, including schools like Furman who grumble about it during the process.
And yet there is all kinds of self-righteous anger at Clemson officials for their strategy. Let’s take a look at this Inside Higher Ed piece that describes the negative reaction to Clemson’s strategies at a recent Institutional Research professional meeting in Atlanta.
A presentation by Catherine Watt, the former institutional researcher and now a staff member at Clemson University, laid bare in a way that is usually left to the imagination the steps that Clemson has (rather brazenly) taken since 2001 to move from 38th to 22nd in U.S. News’s ranking of public research universities.
Let me begin by saying that there is a bit of a rivalry on the Furman campus with Clemson. They are the big state school with a large football program, while we have better academics (and over-achieving athletics) but are overshadowed in the local media. I have several family members who went to Clemson and I bear no animosity toward the school. However, this is not a defense of their academic program, about which I know very little. Rather, my argument is that they are doing exactly what everyone else is (or should be) doing.
1) The President’s Office. Watt said that everything in the President’s office revolves around manipulating these rankings. University presidents are primarily fundraisers these days, and these rankings have a lot of impact on alumni marketing, so this makes sense to me. We might debate whether this should be the case, but it is in fact the case at the overwhelming majority of universities.
2) Class Size. They rigged their average class size number by squeezing 25 student classes down to 18 or 19, and expanding large classes from 55 to 70. Having taught across this range, I will tell you that there is a much larger student benefit going from 25 to 18 than there is a student penalty in going from 55 to 70. In the latter case you are going to teach the class in the same way, while you can try lots of different things with numbers below 20. I say good for them.
3) Admissions. They raised their admissions standards so that their students are all from the top 1/3 of their high school classes with higher test scores. The complaint against this is that they are “underserving” the mediocre high school students in the state. Well, you can’t have it both ways. If more people from the middle third of their classes were admitted, where would the displaced students in the top third go? The state is better served with their best students staying within the state rather than going elsewhere. And there are lots of places for the less qualified students to go, including a myriad of regional state schools that are well-positioned to meet the needs of marginal students in their communities.
4) Faculty Salaries. I was the recipient of a hefty salary raise in my second or third year at Furman due to a “salary adjustment” the school undertook to be more competetive with our A-list peer institutions. So, I would be a major hypocrite to object to raising faculty salaries because of college rankings! Clemson improved their numbers by a) actually increasing salaries, and b) including benefits in the salary numbers they reported. According to the story, they should have included benefits all along, so I don’t see the problem here either. I know that my contract each April contains a bottom-line number that is the sum of my salary with various benefits and retirement package. I’m sure that Furman reports that big number as my actual salary.
5) Reputational surveys. This is the most damning part of the story. Presidents are asked to fill out a survey that ranks schools in their classification across the nation. This is one of ranking measurements to which the Presidents object in the letter linked above. How can a university president possibly have the knowledge required to rank so many schools from so many parts of the country? How much does the president of Clemson know about Oregon State? How familiar can the president of Furman possibly be with liberal arts colleges in California? Ranking reputation is the most worthless aspect of the whole US News process.
That said, it is pretty tacky to give your school the top score while everyone else is average or below. A big part of me applauds them for their subversiveness, however. The same part that (to my memory) never filled out a class evaluation form in 4 years of college and 3 years of MDiv work.
In sum, college rankings are bunk. If you are college shopping, try to compare the actual numbers under the hood of the rankings, realizing that they are highly suspect. Then visit campuses to meet with faculty and students. Sit in on some classes. Browse the faculty publications section of the bookstore. You get the idea. Don’t trust the US News microwaved stats. Trust your eyes, ears, and pocketbooks.
Furman has a decent ranking the last I heard. The truth is, however, that we are perfect for a lot of students and all wrong for others. A number in a magazine cannot possibly help you figure out which student you are.
