The college ranking system plays to our innate desire to reduce analysis to a quantitative and binary decision, to bring order from chaos, and to let someone else do the hard work. The question askes whether it is false advertising for a college to use their ranking to promote their academic programs. In short, the answer is no – it is a third party and theoretically objective measure. The better questions to ask are: “Should a college actively manage their operations to impact their rating?” and “Should parents and students take the rating as ‘gospel’?”. I believe the answers to these two questions are “no” as well.
As Tierney (2013) noted while discussing the weaknesses in the ranking methodology used by U.S. News and Word Report in their rankings, the approach uses a “self-fulfilling prophecy” of peer measurement and reputational measurement that account for a large portion (22.5-25 percent) of the ranking score. Additionally, because the algorithm rewards spending per pupil and selectivity, it provides perverse incentives to colleges to reduce affordability and cheat the system by reporting false test scores and research information to game the system.
In 2012, Claremont McKenna College falsified SAT scores for incoming students for several years. The amount of the inflation was relatively small – “an average of 10-20 points each” (Slotnik & Perez-Pena, 2012). While that is a relatively small percentage on scores that scale to 1600, the school had deliberately moved into “the elite ranks – at least as measured by the most-popular rankings” (Slotnik & Perez-Pena, 2012).
While this overt cheating is obviously unethical, the covert decision making to actively manage rankings may be more insidious. As noted by Tierney (2013) by spending money on “things the U.S. News formula deems important” is harder to identify facially, the impacts these decisions will have on affordability and accessibility may be significantly greater than the fraud perpetrated by Claremont McKenna College.
Several educators and organizations challenged the entrenched system of rankings, with seemingly positive results. Reed College refuses to participate or provide information for ranking the school. University president Colin Driver discusses several rumored “gaming the system” approaches, including not reporting international student SAT scores, inflating spending per student, underranking competitive peer schools and creating a tiered admissions process to create artificial selectivity. Driver goes on to note that “ the most important consequence of sitting out the rankings game, however, is the freedom to pursue our own educational philosophy, not that of some newsmagazine.” (Driver, 2005).
Similarly, Washington Monthly developed their own ranking system, which measures “three equally rated criteria: social mobility, research, and public service” (Carey, 2018). The Washington Monthly approach uses accessibility and affordability as positives, rather than negatives. Carey notes that “we give high marks to colleges that enroll lots of low-income students and help them graduate and earn a good living without too much debt” (Carey, 2018).
Depending on the goal of the parent or student, the use of the right type of ranking may help with the college selection process. With thousands of choices, being able to quickly winnow the field has value – and rankings provide one tool to that end. However, the adage of caveat emptor must hold. The rankings are far more subjective in what they choose to measure than objective. The cloak of objective and numerical ranking hides the subjective decisions of what to measure. U.S. News and Washington Monthly will likely arrive at very different rankings for the same school.
The use of rankings is not false advertising by the school. However, the failure to understand how rankings are derived by parents and other stakeholders is dangerous, and active management of the rankings by colleges at the expense of their students, pedagogy and mission is insidious.
Carey, K. |. (2018, August 27). Introduction: A different kind of college ranking. Retrieved June 16, 2019, from https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/september-october-2018/introduction-a-different-kind-of-college-ranking-10/
Diver, C. (2005, November 01). Is There Life After Rankings? Retrieved June 16, 2019, from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/is-there-life-after-rankings/304308/
Gladwell, M. (2017, June 19). The Trouble with College Rankings. Retrieved June 16, 2019, from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/14/the-order-of-things
Jaschik, S. (2018, February 9). 3 More Instances of False Data in ‘U.S. News’ Rankings. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2018/02/19/false-us-news-rankings-data-discovered-three-more-universities
Nocera, J. (2012, September 29). The College Rankings Racket. Retrieved June 16, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/opinion/nocera-the-silly-list-everyone-cares-about.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1378656118-l2oqJEKbEWaZatp mv0ZHw
Slotnik, D. E., & Pérez-Peña, R. (2012, January 31). College Says It Exaggerated SAT Figures for Ratings. Retrieved June 16, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/education/claremont-mckenna-college-says-it-exaggerated-sat-figures.html?smid=pl-share
Tierney, J. (2014, February 18). Your Annual Reminder to Ignore the U.S. News & World Report College Rankings. Retrieved June 16, 2019, from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/your-annual-reminder-to-ignore-the-em-us-news-world-report-em-college-rankings/279103/