Goodman's Coaching hire grades - shocking

[4everwarriors]

USN's rankin's are abolutely huge to high school seniors, but it is an even bigger deal to universities. Plastered all over their websites and marketing materials along with the number of National Merit finalists attending.

[GGGG]

USN's rankin's are abolutely huge to high school seniors, but it is an even bigger deal to universities. Plastered all over their websites and marketing materials along with the number of National Merit finalists attending.

Just because a flawed metric is used to market a school, doesn't make the metric less flawed. 

Managing to manipulate the ranking has turned into an art form for many institutions.

[4everwarriors]

What would be a better, unflawed metric?

[GGGG]

What would be a better, unflawed metric?

Well right now I would completely eliminate the "reputation" part of their measurement.  I would also consider eliminating, or severely curtailing, the measurements of incoming students (standardized test scores, exclusivity, etc.)  Those don't tell you anything about how good the college actually does at its job of educating students.

I would focus on performance and outcome based metrics: 

First to second year retention (USN uses this now)
Graduation rate (ditto)
Percentage of students engaged in high impact practices
Acceptance rate to graduate or professional school
Job placement rate - normalized for profession
Starting salary - normalized for profession


I would also use some of the institutional statistics that USN uses:

Percentage of instructional faculty with terminal degrees (USN doesn't use instruction)
Financial resources per student


To put it another way, is a school that takes a kid with high ACT scores, graduates them and places them in a decent job really much better than a school that takes a kid with mediocre ACT scores, graduates them, and places them in a job a notch below the other kid?  Which school is actually *performing* better.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Well right now I would completely eliminate the "reputation" part of their measurement.  I would also consider eliminating, or severely curtailing, the measurements of incoming students (standardized test scores, exclusivity, etc.)  Those don't tell you anything about how good the college actually does at its job of educating students.

I would focus on performance and outcome based metrics: 

First to second year retention (USN uses this now)
Graduation rate (ditto)
Percentage of students engaged in high impact practices
Acceptance rate to graduate or professional school
Job placement rate - normalized for profession
Starting salary - normalized for profession


I would also use some of the institutional statistics that USN uses:

Percentage of instructional faculty with terminal degrees (USN doesn't use instruction)
Financial resources per student


To put it another way, is a school that takes a kid with high ACT scores, graduates them and places them in a decent job really much better than a school that takes a kid with mediocre ACT scores, graduates them, and places them in a job a notch below the other kid?  Which school is actually *performing* better.

These are good ideas, but I'm not sure the USN report is supposed to measure the quality of the education so much as to celebrate the exclusivity and reputation of the school.

[GGGG]

These are good ideas, but I'm not sure the USN report is supposed to measure the quality of the education so much as to celebrate the exclusivity and reputation of the school.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/10/princeton-williams-top-us-news-best-colleges-rankings

"The 2014 U.S. News Best Colleges rankings, released today, are designed to help students and parents make an informed decision."

Whatever that means.

[4everwarriors]

Well right now I would completely eliminate the "reputation" part of their measurement.  I would also consider eliminating, or severely curtailing, the measurements of incoming students (standardized test scores, exclusivity, etc.)  Those don't tell you anything about how good the college actually does at its job of educating students.

I would focus on performance and outcome based metrics: 

First to second year retention (USN uses this now)
Graduation rate (ditto)
Percentage of students engaged in high impact practices
Acceptance rate to graduate or professional school
Job placement rate - normalized for profession
Starting salary - normalized for profession


I would also use some of the institutional statistics that USN uses:

Percentage of instructional faculty with terminal degrees (USN doesn't use instruction)
Financial resources per student


To put it another way, is a school that takes a kid with high ACT scores, graduates them and places them in a decent job really much better than a school that takes a kid with mediocre ACT scores, graduates them, and places them in a job a notch below the other kid?  Which school is actually *performing* better.

This seems too logical to actually gain traction. Besides, if reputation and name were minimized, how would the highly select schools justify their exorbitant fees?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Well right now I would completely eliminate the "reputation" part of their measurement.  I would also consider eliminating, or severely curtailing, the measurements of incoming students (standardized test scores, exclusivity, etc.)  Those don't tell you anything about how good the college actually does at its job of educating students.

I would focus on performance and outcome based metrics: 

First to second year retention (USN uses this now)
Graduation rate (ditto)
Percentage of students engaged in high impact practices
Acceptance rate to graduate or professional school
Job placement rate - normalized for profession
Starting salary - normalized for profession


I would also use some of the institutional statistics that USN uses:

Percentage of instructional faculty with terminal degrees (USN doesn't use instruction)
Financial resources per student


To put it another way, is a school that takes a kid with high ACT scores, graduates them and places them in a decent job really much better than a school that takes a kid with mediocre ACT scores, graduates them, and places them in a job a notch below the other kid?  Which school is actually *performing* better.

All of this is a fantastic suggestion. Many have attempted to come up with this metric. No one has been very successful...other than  USNWR.

USNWR is the RPI of universities. It is an extremely flawed metric, but it is what people use. Universities seek to jump in these rating so they can attract more students.

And don't be quick to cut the reputation factor. It may be illogical but reputation plays a huge role in how graduates are perceived and how marketable they are. I have a bachelor's from Marquette and a Master's from Grand Valley State. Even though my GVSU degree is higher, people are more impressed by the Marquette degree.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Sultan,

It would be nice if an organization could use those metrics to come up with a legitimate index.

I think the biggest value would come if someone could use those types of metrics in combination with cost to come up with the best value for a certain dollar level (basically public versus private versus super elite private).

For example, if I'm choosing among the 12 non-Madison state schools, which one gives me the best chance of getting into graduate school, or whatever.

It might introduce a little bit of actual competition into the system, I don't know.

[GGGG]

It would be nice if an organization could use those metrics to come up with a legitimate index.

The problem is that its too hard.  Incoming stats are easy.  Any institutional researcher can find them with a few keystrokes.  A lot of the data I am talking about isn't always collected and it is hard to normalize.  But that would require work.

[GGGG]

USNWR is the RPI of universities. It is an extremely flawed metric, but it is what people use. Universities seek to jump in these rating so they can attract more students.

And don't be quick to cut the reputation factor. It may be illogical but reputation plays a huge role in how graduates are perceived and how marketable they are. I have a bachelor's from Marquette and a Master's from Grand Valley State. Even though my GVSU degree is higher, people are more impressed by the Marquette degree.

It is worse than RPI because RPI at least measures outcome.  USN would be like using recruiting rankings to seed the NCAA tournament.  And yeah, they use that rating to attract students because the public doesn't have much of a clue what it is they are measuring.

And reputation means nothing after your first job.  The knowledge you get from your education means *much* more to your career than the reputation of the school you attended.  I mean its nice that people are impressed with your Marquette degree, but unless you can perform it doesn't matter.  I could probably name the schools that everyone who works for me attended if I sat down and thought about it.  It means very little to me whatsoever.

[keefe]

And reputation means nothing after your first job.  The knowledge you get from your education means *much* more to your career than the reputation of the school you attended.  I mean its nice that people are impressed with your Marquette degree, but unless you can perform it doesn't matter.  I could probably name the schools that everyone who works for me attended if I sat down and thought about it.  It means very little to me whatsoever.

I disagree completely. Reputation is everything and it stays with you for the entirety of your working and social life. Marquette is NOT an institution that carries such life time prestige. Neither is UW-Madison, despite what our neighbors to the west may think.

A medical doctor from Johns Hopkins, for instance, commands immediate respect. Someone with a degree from a Caribbean medical school gets little acknowledgement. The Hopkins degree will influence an alum's career in ways there is no price tag or metric but can be subjectively noticed over time.

The reputation of a university is paramount and is worth every penny paid for the premium attached to the brand. There is a reason primary, secondary, and tertiary schools get to charge outrageous tuition fees because they have invested in their brands and deserve to get a return on that investment.

[GGGG]

A bad doctor from Hopkins is a bad doctor.  A good doctor from MCW is a good doctor.  The one from Hopkins might "command respect immediately," but eventually the relative talents make where they went to school irrelevant.   

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

And reputation means nothing after your first job.  The knowledge you get from your education means *much* more to your career than the reputation of the school you attended.  I mean its nice that people are impressed with your Marquette degree, but unless you can perform it doesn't matter.  I could probably name the schools that everyone who works for me attended if I sat down and thought about it.  It means very little to me whatsoever.

I agree that reputation plays the largest role in the first job. But could a metric measuring university quality really take in data from anything besides a first job? If you take into second, third, and fourth jobs, you are introducing a a crap ton of variables. Are they becoming good professionals because of their education? Or is it because they have a great supervisor who is mentoring them?

Also, we can't discount incoming data. If we truly want to measure the quality of university, you have to benchmark what their students started as. Growth from incoming to outgoing is what should be important in evaluating a university.

Point being, creating this index would be extremely difficult. But if someone did it, they would revolutionize how we look at higher education....hmmmm....I will get my PHD eventually....

[keefe]

A bad doctor from Hopkins is a bad doctor.  A good doctor from MCW is a good doctor.  The one from Hopkins might "command respect immediately," but eventually the relative talents make where they went to school irrelevant.   

You miss the point. Let's begin with the fact that grads from certain schools are statistically more likely to perform better than those from others. You cannot be unaware of the various Protection Societies that exist. People with a particular lineage look for others who share their training, experience, and vetting. Credentials exist for a reason and it is a fact that some schools sell much better than others.

I went to a very highly regarded prep school but it can't hold a candle to Trinity, Horace Mann, Exeter or Andover. And those schools have one aim - to get their graduates into these schools: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, MIT, Penn, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale. I didn't make up that list. It is written into the objectives of each academy.

If you don't think that getting into the best possible prep school, college, graduate/professional program has life long advantages you are naive. Credentials vary in quality, stature, freshness, and impact.

[GGGG]

You miss the point. Let's begin with the fact that grads from certain schools are statistically more likely to perform better than those from others. You cannot be unaware of the various Protection Societies that exist. People with a particular lineage look for others who share their training, experience, and vetting. Credentials exist for a reason and it is a fact that some schools sell much better than others.

I went to a very highly regarded prep school but it can't hold a candle to Trinity, Horace Mann, Exeter or Andover. And those schools have one aim - to get their graduates into these schools: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, MIT, Penn, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale. I didn't make up that list. It is written into the objectives of each academy.

If you don't think that getting into the best possible prep school, college, graduate/professional program has life long advantages you are naive. Credentials vary in quality, stature, freshness, and impact.

But you are missing the entire point of the conversation.  The USN "Best Colleges" are "best" because of the quality of the students that are incoming.  The students from those prep schools go to the Ivies like you suggest, but that doesn't *necessarily* make those Ivies the "best schools."  They just take the "best people."

IOW the output is going to be good if the inputs are excellent.

[keefe]

I agree that reputation plays the largest role in the first job. But could a metric measuring university quality really take in data from anything besides a first job? If you take into second, third, and fourth jobs, you are introducing a a crap ton of variables. Are they becoming good professionals because of their education? Or is it because they have a great supervisor who is mentoring them?

Also, we can't discount incoming data. If we truly want to measure the quality of university, you have to benchmark what their students started as. Growth from incoming to outgoing is what should be important in evaluating a university.

Point being, creating this index would be extremely difficult. But if someone did it, they would revolutionize how we look at higher education....hmmmm....I will get my PHD eventually....

Aggie

I am not referencing professional performance. All I am saying is that reputation plays a huge role in advancing one's opportunities. Kids who are accepted to the right primary school have an edge on getting into the right prep school which enhances the possibility of getting into the best college. This is not limited to the US but is prevalent throughout Europe and Asia, too.

After matriculation, the right schools provide significant opportunities that might not be otherwise available. There are some who place an extremely high value on a degree from Notre Dame and the reality is that those alums have superior connections and opportunities over a Marquette or Xavier grad. And that value doesn't diminish over time either.

Marquette is an outstanding institution that delivers an exceptional product. It has a brand name that triggers recognition. Here on the west coast, people have heard of it but for some reason are surprised it isn't on the east coast rather than WI. But that confusion illustrates solid if not stellar brand equity.

[keefe]

But you are missing the entire point of the conversation.  The USN "Best Colleges" are "best" because of the quality of the students that are incoming.  The students from those prep schools go to the Ivies like you suggest, but that doesn't *necessarily* make those Ivies the "best schools."  They just take the "best people."

IOW the output is going to be good if the inputs are excellent.

We are actually in agreement. Here is a passage which underscores the relevance of reputation from a risk management standpoint:

"Prep schools are organized to ensure elite college placement–that's the whole idea," says Mitchell L. Stevens, associate professor of education at Stanford University and author of Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Stevens worked for a year and a half at the admissions office at an elite liberal arts college, traveling to high schools mainly in the Western U.S. and the East Coast to recruit applicants. "A [big] name high school provides assurance to college admissions. It's about the reliability of applicants."

Tiny classes, individualized attention–and in the case of boarding schools, 24 hours access to faculty–certainly help students earn their way into the best colleges. But Stevens stresses it's not just academics that count. "There's a much lower likelihood that a student from a boarding school is going to freak out" when they get to an extremely competitive university, he says.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Aggie

I am not referencing professional performance. All I am saying is that reputation plays a huge role in advancing one's opportunities. Kids who are accepted to the right primary school have an edge on getting into the right prep school which enhances the possibility of getting into the best college. This is not limited to the US but is prevalent throughout Europe and Asia, too.

After matriculation, the right schools provide significant opportunities that might not be otherwise available. There are some who place an extremely high value on a degree from Notre Dame and the reality is that those alums have superior connections and opportunities over a Marquette or Xavier grad. And that value doesn't diminish over time either.

Marquette is an outstanding institution that delivers an exceptional product. It has a brand name that triggers recognition. Here on the west coast, people have heard of it but for some reason are surprised it isn't on the east coast rather than WI. But that confusion illustrates solid if not stellar brand equity.

I was responding to Sultan. I actually agree with most of your thoughts on this topic. Though I do think it varies from field to field.

[Jay Bee]

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/10/princeton-williams-top-us-news-best-colleges-rankings

"The 2014 U.S. News Best Colleges rankings, released today, are designed to help students and parents make an informed decision."

Whatever that means.

"Something we throw together to sell our (US News) brand."

[ZiggysFryBoy]

"Something we throw together to sell our (US News) brand one big issue per year."

FIFY

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

FIFY

Think about how remarkable it is that a magazine (?) that NO ONE on Earth pays attention to 51 weeks a year is somehow the arbiter of collegiate quality for one shining moment every year. It's really a breathtaking absurdity.